Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Well, operations around a carrier are at sea level especially (obviously) take off and landing but also any dive bomb and torpedo attacks. I think generally it is from base level of the sea up to an altitude where the thinning of the air affects engine output or aerodynamics. Anyone from Bristol in UK will tell you the sea isnt actually level, it goes up and down by around 14 meters.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?
I suspect when ones mind is concentrating on his target, or finding a target, he doesn't hear the ping. I remember men firing the M-1 on the range pull the trigger once more after the clip ejection. In fact, I think I have done it on a civilian range.
I had to give the laugh thingy, no offense intended - I am deaf because of that sh*t.
And if you ever want to feel the word of God in your face/eardrums/sternum, try an 8mm Mauser rifle.
It'll make an M1 Garand feel like plinking with a .22 rifle.
Not to mention that it takes far fewer seconds to slam another clip into battery, than some clown sprinting your wayIt has been a lot years but I can remember the M-1 giving a "ping".
However on a firing line with 30-40 guys firing (100-150ft of firing line) with 1/2 M-1 rifles (10 rounds each in 50-60 seconds?) hearing every ping up and down the line and identifying eject ping from landing on tarmac/asphalt ping and/or cartridge case pings landing on different things gets a bit confusing.
Also takes a brave German/Italian/Japanese soldier to jump up hearing the ping and not knowing if the "pinger" has got a buddy with loaded rifle close by covering the same area.
Not saying it never happened but infantry fights were very rarely mano a mano duals.
Edit:
Also takes a German/Italian/Japanese soldier who had been in combat before who had been close enough to hear the "ping" and identify it for what it was.
If you have 4 GI's shooting at you, you get 4 pings every 32 shots.
Have you got a source? I'd prefer one in print, if possible.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.
Have you got a source? I'd prefer one in print, if possible.
No book handy, unfortunately. I donated most of my books when I returned home to Texas 12 years ago.
Online:
If I recall the US Navy was initially not thrilled with the Corsair. Pilots simply found it too hard to see over the nose on approach to the carrier. It was the British who pioneered the curving approach path that allowed the pilot to see the carrier off to their left for the entire approach and straighten out at the last second to catch the wire.
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/WWIIplanes/comments/weazpp/fleet_air_arm_corsair_landing_on_aircraft_carrier/
The Davy Ray who wrote the following lists himself as an author:
Given the availability of the F6F Hellcat the US Navy just gave up on the Corsair as a carrier plane and relegated it to the Marines as a land based craft for which it performed admirably. The Japanese nicknamed it 'Whistling death'.
Enter the British who would contribute several innovations to carrier design including the angled flight deck. They figured out that you could do what private pilots call a short field approach by coming upon the stern at an angle before grabbing the arrester wires. That way the pilot never lost sight of the deck.
How was the Royal Navy able to solve the F4U Corsair’s carrier issues faster than the US Navy?
Answer (1 of 8): The biggest problem of the F4U was the long snout housing that big Pratt & Whitney radial engine and the length of the propellers associated with it. The long prop length is the reason for the gull wings. One simply could not see the deck of the carrier on a straight in approach....www.quora.com
The Fleet Air Arm had been operating 'long nosed' aircraft, with inline engines rather than radials, for decades. They had developed a curved landing approach for use with the Supermarine Seafire which was, fairly, easy to adapt for the Corsair.
Unlike the USN no 'outside the box' thinking was required.
[ibid]
... and so on ...
I can see nowhere - thus far - where the British claimed to have 'fixed' it.
It would be easy to infer that the Americans reinstating the Corsair for deck operations was the result of British success but I'm not completely sure. You also have to remember that what was said at squadron level on such matters probably doesn't constitute the best available information."After the success we had with 'em -- well, our pilots had success with them -- the Americans did go back to 'em, eventually."
It would be easy to infer that the Americans reinstating the Corsair for deck operations was the result of British success but I'm not completely sure. You also have to remember that what was said at squadron level on such matters probably doesn't constitute the best available information.
I can see where this becomes a problem but it sounds pretty innocuous to me. I also accept that you're not saying that the British or British historians made the claim. The title of the thread got it right: it's a myth. But it's a myth looking for somewhere to land.
I only posted the information about Brown to show that, at least from the British side, there doesn't seem to be a lot in it. I also pointed out that the standards of AC behaviour were lower for the RN than they were for the USN, so 'fixing' is relative anyway...
True. My mistake.