The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair (2 Viewers)

[GregP]

We've heard rumors for years about this, but I have not investigated it until now because it really didn't make much difference what the reason was why the Corsairs were ground-based for so long; they were and that's a fact. When they got to carriers, they did well. Not better than the Hellcat, but well.

A LOT of the overall success of a particular aircraft is due to it's assignments. The Hellcats were in the thick of most of the battles that happened after their deployment and were in a target-rich environment. The Corsairs were constrained by the location of whatever ground bases they were assigned to and didn't get the chance for the same amount of combat until they got to carriers. They did fine when they had the chance to do so.

 

[special ed]

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.

 

[Zipper730]

Late-1930s: The US Navy adopted a curved landing approach for all carrier aircraft.

When did they do away with that? It would seem a straight-in approach was planned initially for the F4U-1 with VF-17.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

That's my understanding as well.

 

[Ambaryerno]

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.

 

[DarrenW]

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.

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.

 

[RCAFson]

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?

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.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/intelsum85-dec42.pdf

 

[Ambaryerno]

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.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/intelsum85-dec42.pdf

Don't forget the Wildcat's ability to dive like a block of lead.

 

[RCAFson]

Don't forget the Wildcat's ability to dive like a block of lead.

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.

 

[GregP]

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 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.

 

[RCAFson]

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 tests conducted by the USN were of the two aircraft flying side by side.

 

[SaparotRob]

Was it the F4F that didn't have a "do not exceed" IAS?

 

[Ambaryerno]

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.

Was it the F4F that didn't have a "do not exceed" IAS?

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.

 

[GrauGeist]

The A6M's controls got heavy at higher speeds, though.

As far as a source for a myth is concerned, many got started by writers looking to sell their stories to magazines.

We call these "Caidinisms", and Caidin himself was notorious for not only embellishing, but also outright bullshit.

 

[ThomasP]

In theory the F4F's VNE (450 mph IAS below 10,000 ft) was significantly higher than the A6M's (~400 mph IAS below 10,000 ft). In practice the difference was small - the drag of the F4F precluded it from accelerating particularly rapidly (the drag was similar to the Hurricane) and reaching very high dive speeds did not occur within the normal operating conditions. It is interesting that in both the F4F and Hurricane pilot's notes there is a disclaimer saying that the aircraft was 'not expected to reach VNE in service'.

The idea that the F4F could out-dive the A6M and use this as a tactic is something of a misunderstanding. The reality was that the stiffening of the ailerons on the A6M at speeds above around 350-400 mph IAS meant the A6M could not roll quickly enough to follow the F4F when it rolled into a new turning direction.

To be fair, many VNE for early-war aircraft were measured by beginning the dive from altitudes of 20,000-30,000 ft and continuing to dive until the aircraft came apart or became marginally controllable. It really was not until the new generation of aircraft came along that VNE could easily be reached in practical situations.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

Not mentioned is stiffening of controls.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Who needs proof when you can have waffles?

Bacon on the side, please.

And REAL maple syrup, please.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Cumulative total production and cumulative allocation to British from total production. F4U first combat mission February 1943, F6F first combat mission August 1943, F8F on way to front August 1945. Number built to end of combat debut month, F4U 292, F6F 1,058, F8F 163 (In theory). Helps show the gap between production start and combat debut. Also how to end April 1943 the USN had been delivered around 2 F4U to 1 F6F.

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​

 

[EwenS]

The first F8F Bearcat squadron, VF-19, part of CAG-19 was transported from California to Hawaii in Aug 1945 to complete its training. It was destined for the USS Hornet CV-12. That ship however did not complete its repairs / refit at the Hunter's Point yard in San Francisco (damage caused by typhoon in June 1945), until 13 Sept 1945 after which she was diverted to Magic Carpet operations. However some sources say CAG-19 deployed on her for a short cruise Oct/Nov 1945.

So most likely, in the event of WW2 continuing, the F8F would have made its combat debut in operations in Oct 1945 as part of the lead up to Operation Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu.

The next F8F squadrons were VF-18 & VBF-18 which were working up in California when the war ended. They do not appear to have been allocated to an operational carrier at that point.They went aboard the training carrier CV-4 Ranger at the end of Sept 1945 and were flown off to NAS New Orleans on 15 Oct.

 

[EwenS]

Dana Bell's two books on the F4U-1 detail most, if not all, of the modifications made to the type on the production line during its production by Vought, Brewster & Goodyear including tying them down to individual construction numbers.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Aircraft-Pictorial-No-Corsair-2014-05-03/dp/B01FIY7O74

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Aircraft-Pictorial-No-Corsair-2015-11-08/dp/B01N3YQ1WD

As for the wing spoiler, he noted its introduction on the production lines as follows.
Vought - c/n 943 BuNo 17640
Brewster - c/n 20 BuNo 04534
Goodyear - c/n 201 BuNo 13192

Unfortunately Dana hasn't posted on this site since a "falling out" in Dec 2022.

In the introduction to the first Vol he noted

"....While the project began exploring the few areas where earlier books disagreed, recently opened files at the National Archives offered the chance for completely new research. Dozens of boxes of correspondence, reports and photos led to a understanding of the Corsair. ...."

One modification he does attribute to the British was the addition of scoops on the side of the fuselage on aircraft destined for Britain, to eliminate the risk of carbon-monoxide build up in the cockpit. "The vents were introduced in Brewster production, installed on all Goodyear Mark IVs and retrofitted by Britain to earlier aircraft." Brewster was responsible for developing the "clipped" wingtips to allow a folded Corsair to fit British carrier hangars.