The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair (8 Viewers)

[GrauGeist]

Well, the Brits did fix the Corsair to suit their requirements. Clipped wings, raised tail wheel, centre-section drop tank, etc.

Vought lengthened the tailwheel strut when they made some changes to the F4U-1. Other changes were raising the seat seven inches and replacing the birdcage canopy with an improved version - this became the F4U-1A.

The FAA received their F4U-1As from Vought with clipped wings (eight inches removed), so they'd fit on RN carriers.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The FAA received their F4U-1As from Vought with clipped wings (eight inches removed), so they'd fit on RN carriers.

So, Vought in fact fixed for Corsair to meet FAA needs. That makes more sense than chaps with hacksaws at RNAS Yeovilton.

 

[GrauGeist]

Well, the RN guys did modify some wings to fit inside RN carriers with a hacksaw, literally. But the modified wing had a fiberglass tip installed to finish the modification.

The funny thing about this, is some people are under the impression that the British "clipped" the wings for performance like was done on the Spitfire.

 

[ThomasP]

My information may be wrong, but my notes say that the raised tail mod (from the British view) was to prevent the new tail hook position/arrangement from causing damage to the bottom of the fuselage tail and/or to the tail wheel mechanism. When they attached the hook to the tail wheel strut, part of the reason was to prevent the tailwheel from being damaged when yanked sideways - as it could with the original stinger arrangement when catching the arrestor wires off-center and/or off-angle. But, when catching the wire, this sometimes caused the hook to rebound into the bottom of the fuselage and/or bounce up to the side of the fuselage and get yanked sideways into the fuselage - either of which was likely to caused damage to one part or another. The extra 6.5" (or 8") clearance between the fuselage and the hook/wire/deck prevented this.

If my info is correct then I would assume that the Vought production mod was for the same reason?

 

[EwenS]

Well, the Brits did fix the Corsair to suit their requirements. Clipped wings, raised tail wheel, centre-section drop tank, etc.

Vought lengthened the tailwheel strut when they made some changes to the F4U-1. Other changes were raising the seat seven inches and replacing the birdcage canopy with an improved version - this became the F4U-1A.

The FAA received their F4U-1As from Vought with clipped wings (eight inches removed), so they'd fit on RN carriers.

So, Vought in fact fixed for Corsair to meet FAA needs. That makes more sense than chaps with hacksaws at RNAS Yeovilton.

Let's just look at that in a bit more detail. Extracted from Dana Bell's books on the Corsair and others.

The first Corsairs to go to the FAA were 95 "Birdcage" F4U-1 Corsair I, that were delivered from May to Sept 1943. The vast majority of these were delivered to training units and then new squadrons forming in the USA. Only a handful were immediately sent to Britain, although some more followed later.

The first 230 Vought built F4U-1A Corsair II (delivered Aug - Sept 1943) and the first 74 Brewster built F3A-1 (delivered Jan-Feb 1944) also received the original wing. The Mk.II began to arrive to replace Mk.I on 2 of the first 3 squadrons to form in the USA in Aug 1943.

It was quickly noticed that folded, these would be too tall for the hangar decks of the 3 Illustrious class carriers they were intended to operate from. So Brewster (as a special project, not Vought) devised a short plywood wingtip and a method for for cutting the original wingtip off the wing (as originally designed the Corsair outer wing panel from wing fold to tip was constructed as a single piece. That changed later). Hence the story about needing to take a hacksaw to the wingtip to make the modification. Andover Kent Aviation then designed a fibreglass replacement for the plywood one. It began to retrofit these to FAA Corsairs from Aug 1943 in the USA. That shortened the wing to just inside the outermost rib.

Dana wrote:-

"All British Corsairs that hadn't already been destroyed or shipped overseas would eventually be refitted with the shortened tips."

Production Corsair II & III built after that and all FG-1A/D Corsair IV built by Goodyear (deliveries from July 1944) were given a shortened wing tip on the production line. But that was a tip that was even shorter than the Brewster / Andover Kent Aviation design.

Between 6 & 17 October 1943 the first 3 Corsair squadrons to form 1830, 1831 & 1833 (only 1831 retained Corsair I at that point) and a batch of replacement aircraft were loaded on the escort carriers Slinger & Trumpeter at Norfolk, Virginia. They were disembarked at Belfast on 1 Nov. 1831 was disbanded on 12 Dec 1943 with its personnel being used to enlarge the other two squadrons. 1830 & 1833 first went aboard Illustrious in Dec 1943 for deck landing training. The next 3 squadrons received Mk.II in Oct-Nov 1943 with 2 leaving for Britain in mid-Dec (the third disbanded in the USA to create a another Corsair training unit).

So there was plenty of time for the clipped wing tip to be retrofitted to early FAA Corsairs before they left the USA for Britain. Now whether British maintenance personnel helped out the Andover Kent boys with the modification we will probably never know. Certainly by the time the first went aboard Illustrious they had the clipped wing tips.

Work on the the centreline fuel tank was begun by Vought in Dec 1942 and by mid-1943 Brewster was involved in a bomb rack conversion as a special project. Vought produced 86 conversion kits for the earliest Corsair Mk.II to come off their production line (Aug-Sept 1943 production). It is possible that these kits were fitted by British personnel. This became a production line mod around this time.

The more I think about this myth, the more I get the feeling that many of the mods developed by Vought took time to filter their way through to the FAA and were then being retrofitted to aircraft by FAA personnel at Royal Navy Repair Yards or even on the carriers themselves as they became available. Norman Hanson in his wartime memoir, records how at one point in April 1944, the squadron flew their Corsairs from Ceylon to southern India to pick up a batch of replacements (he says to pick up a later Mark, but Illustrious' squadrons didn't get the later Marks).

 

[Jabberwocky]

The earliest reference I can find is in the thread Visibility over the nose: inline v. radial engine. August 25, 2010. Post #13.

I found an earlier reference on these forums - from 2009 Is the Corsair easier to land on a carrier?

"Go back and check your history. The USN was operating Corsairs off carriers and using that short curving final approach before the first British units even got their Corsairs. The story that the FAA taught the USN how to land Corsairs successfully on carriers is a myth".

So, it's a long standing belief and one that's been busted before but remains persistent. Even the Smithsonian is in on the act (From 2021: How the Navy Tamed the "Killer Corsair"):

"But it was the British Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm who came up with the concept that brought Corsairs to sea duty for good. The pilots developed a long, curving landing approach to keep the carrier's deck in sight until the last moments before touchdown."

The earliest I can recall reading the belief/story that the Fleet Air Arm developed the curved approach for the F4U on carriers was either the Aces High BB or the Il-2 forums when the 'Pacific Fighters' expansion was being worked on released in 2003/2004.

Earliest reference I can find on the Aces High board to the story is from July 2007. The old Il-2 forums are dead and the Wayback Machine hasn't indexed content before 2013 (shame, as there was gold in the dross).

 

[EwenS]

It is perfectly true that the USN was deck landing Corsairs some months before RN squadrons began to receive them (the first F4U-1 was deck landed on 25th Sept 1942, which revealed some of its problems with the long nose).

BUT

the RN had experience with landing long nosed fighters on carrier decks before the first production Corsairs rolled off the production line in July 1942.

A hooked Spitfire was first deck landed during Christmas week 1941 with the first Seafires reaching the front line squadrons in June 1942 and becoming operational during Operation Torch in early Nov 1942. All needing to fly that curved approach. And the Blackburn Firebrand with its huge nose was first deck landed in Feb 1943.

VMF-124 was the first US unit to receive Corsairs on 7 Sept 1942 and went to a land base in the Solomons at the beginning of 1943. VF-12 followed in Oct 1942, but it was March 1943 before they were fully equipped and carried out their first deck landing training. The next unit, VF-17 formed on 1 Jan 1943 and went aboard the new carrier Bunker Hill in July 1943 for her shakedown cruise in the Caribbean.

RN squadrons formed from 1 June 1943 with the first, 1830, carrying out its first deck landings at the beginning of Sept 1943 on the USS Charger out of Norfolk.

So back to the Smithsonian statement and read it carefully, with my emphasis:-

"But it was the British Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm who came up with the concept that brought Corsairs to sea duty for good. The pilots developed a long, curving landing approach to keep the carrier's deck in sight until the last moments before touchdown."

It doesn't say the RN deck landed them first. Note that word "concept". Very important in the context of the timing of events.

Given the timing of the introduction of the Seafire v the Corsair to service, it seems clear where the "concept " started. Given how closely the two navies had worked together since 1940 there was an interchange of ideas. Maybe this was another one of those. Or maybe it was just a logical solution to a problem faced by both that emerged separately. I doubt that we will really ever know for sure.

 

[Shortround6]

Not sure the Spitfire had a worse view for landing than this.

or this
.

 

[GrauGeist]

Not sure the Spitfire had a worse view for landing than this.
View attachment 794936
or this
.
View attachment 794937

Don't forget types like the Douglas TBD.

 

[Shortround6]

Some of it has to do with the distance back from the cowl/nose edge, the size of the engine and the the height the pilot's head is above the cowl top, the angle he can see downwards.
Devastator may not have been too bad, or, the Navy had worse?

 

[GrauGeist]

Devastator may not have been too bad, or, the Navy had worse?

Yep - the SBA/SBN.

And not just forward vis...