ADS NOT DISPLAYED TO REGISTERED USERS.
Best naval fighter
| Old Threads Discuss Best naval fighter in the Old Stuff forums; the brits merely refined the corsairs design, they chopped 8 inches off the wing which helped the problem of bounce ... |
-
Senior Member
the brits merely refined the corsairs design, they chopped 8 inches off the wing which helped the problem of bounce on landing, they also devised a new approach for landing it due to the lack of visibility caused by the long nose...............................
"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy."
-
ceilin feet, 41,500 feet 
(sorry, private joke)
-
The Brits actually chopped off the 8 inches of the wings so the Corsairs would fit in their hangar decks (which were obviously smaller than the US carrier hangar decks) and all other results were a side effect (some were expected, others - like reducing the bounce - weren't). Lt Cdr R.M. Smeeton of the RN came up with the idea of cutting off the wingtips while Vought was thinking more along the linesof retracting the tail wheel, compressing the main gear oleos, etc.
The results of shortening the wings were an increased stall speed (which gave more warning of a stall and less roll in a stall), slightly increased take off distance, improved maneuverability at lower altitudes, and lessening the bounce.
There is the designation F4U-1B that is sometimes used to describe early Corsairs for the Brits with clipped wings. If this is an official designation, I would say the Brits helped design the -1B (as Viper said - it was an American plane and they Britainized it ), if it is unofficial, the clipped wings would be a modification IMO, but still a case of the Brits Britainizing an American plane.
And to be picky Lanc, you should have said the Brits merely refined their Corsairs's design, as only British (and possibly RNZAF depending how they got their Corsairs) Corsairs had clipped wings while all the US Corsairs maintained full length wings.
Anyways, landing approach wasn't the design, so we don't need to argue about it 
Just found another thing (I coudln't read too well earlier apparently ) - Another British improvement was the fitting of small air-scoops to the fuselage sides to help prevent life-threatening carbon monoxide fumes accumulating in the fuselage abaft the cockpit. It was thought that, because the exhaust stubs were flush with the engine cowlings, they were not throwing the expelled gases clear of the forward of the forward end of the fuselage. Interesting if I may say so - guess I'll see if I can find anything also about this modification and whether it was also implement on Yankee Corsairs.
-
Senior Member
ceilin feet, 41,500 feet (sorry, private joke)
don't i know it................................
"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy."
-
-
Senior Member
oooooooooook 
"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy."
-
Oh and Viper... 
Now Archer...THATS immature 
-
Senior Member
"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy."
-
-
know what? im leaving this site,i came here to talk about ww2 planes and you show up and be a prick so....im gone ,bunch of assholes
-
Senior Member
Wow! Now I understand what bronzewaler said 
Nothing makes a man more aware of his capabilities and of his limitations than those moments when he must push aside all the familiar defenses of ego and vanity, and accept reality by staring, with the fear that is normal to a man in combat, into the face of Death.
— Major Robert S. Johnson, USAAF
-
Because I like to argue (well not really, it just keeps us talking about the Corsair )...
The Royal Navy were the first, operationally, to use Corsair's on Aircraft Carriers and their first action was against the German Battleship "Tripitz" in March 1943. The first Royal Navy Corsair Squadron, No. 1830, was formed at U.S.N.A.S. Quonset Point, Rhode Island on the 1st June 1943.
Anyone see a problem with this statement from the website? Supposedly the first missions were before there was even a Corsair squadron....Tirpitz was 1944.
Anyways, back to your post BronzeWhaler:
The British DID enable the Corsair to be launched from aircraft carriers!
Hmm, Corsairs were launched from carriers quite easily, landing was the hard part
The Americans had the corsair designed and built originally (i'm fairly certain of this) as a land based aircraft for coastal defence kind of operations flying from shore
The Corsair was originally intended for carriers - but the negative traits of the early Corsairs led the Navy to not put them on carriers originally, so the Marines got them.
Originally Posted by
Corsair: The F4U in World War II and Korea the F4U's origin dated to early 1938 when the Navy Bureau of Aeronautics sponsored a design competition for a new carrier fighter.
Originally Posted by
Vought F4U Corsair In 1938 the US Navy ha ddecided that the time was long overdue to bring carrier-based aviation up to the same performance as land-based aircraft. On 30 June 1938 the US Navy ordered...the Vought XF4U-1
You're quite wrong
However, the early problems are a good thing for the Brits. According to Norman Hanson, a No.1833 Squadron Corsair pilot,
The fighter had originally been ordered by the Navy for carrier use to replace the Grumman F4F, the Wildcat (Martlet to the Royal Navy), but it had proved to be such a handful in Fleet trials, and particularly in deck landing, that the new Grumman F6F - the Hellcat - had been adopted instead. This meant that the F4U - the Corsair - could now go to the shore-based squadrons of the Marine Air Corps, and to the Royal Navy, if they wanted it.
So be happy very early Corsairs had so many problems. And now, to continue (and off-topic, included solely because it makes fun of Seafires and Sea Hurricanes)
The Royal Navy accepted it willingly, since the only alternatives in sight were the Seafire and Sea Hurricane - and these were just not carrier material. Their range was pathetically limited, even with drop tanks, and worse still their structure, whilst perfectly adequate for airfield flying, was not up to the rough and tumble life of carrier decks. In both cases a heavy landing, caused either by the vessel's pitch or by the pilot's hamfistedness, often brought the undercarriage through the wings.
And back to Corsairs now
On 2 October, VF-17 flew their Corsairs off the Bunker Hill to Ford Island (Pearl Harbour). The reason for them not being deployed to the Pacific aboard the Bunker Hill was not due any fault of the Corsair or the VF-17 pilots, but logistics and the brasses continuing to not think the Corsair was carrier qualified even though VF-17 had qualified on F4U-1s (and was sent to Hawaii with -1As, which included many designs they suggested and that were found while training on carriers) proving it was fit for carrier duty. No other carrier had Corsairs aboard, they were all with Hellcats or Wildcats (escort carriers), and as such there were no parts for Corsairs on any other carriers should a Corsair need to land on one with damage. This decision was also in part due to some high ranking officers who thought Corsairs didn't belong on carriers (or still had problems) although VF-17 clearly illustrated that the Corsair could operate from carriers. Either way, VF-17 had fully carrier qualified and had set out to the Pacific aboard a carrier in late September-early October 1943. When given the opportunity to stay with AG-17 by converting to F6Fs, the pilots of VF-17 decided they would rather keep their Corsairs.
VF-17s credentials to fly from carriers was illustrated again on Noevember 11. VF-17 flew took off from Ondonga (New Georgia) at 0420, flew to a task force comprising of the Bunker Hill, Essex, and Independence until their fuel reserves got low. At which point they would land on the Essex and Bunker Hill (VF-33 landed their Hellcat's aboard Independence) to refuel and ream beofre resuming CAP. Around 0830 the Corsairs got low on fuel and VF-17 made 23 landings (all of the Corsairs involved) without a single wave off after several weeks without practice.
Before VF-17, there was VF-12, who I would assume carrier qualified as they flew off the USS Core and USS Enterprise. At the time VF-12 was flying from the carriers, they had many problems with the Corsair (which were soon corrected) and switched to the Hellcat before deploying so they would remain aboard the USS Saratgoa.
The Yankees could land it aboard carriers, they just deemed the Hellcat the better aircraft for carrier ops (easier to fly and land on carriers, which is quite important when the new pilots won't be getting much training), Hellcats were in the fleet before the Corsair was ready to be deployed (no Corsair spares - but lots of Grumman Hellcat and Wildcat parts), and the Navy brass (some simply not liking the Corsair, and some just believing that it was a handful to use on carriers - which I'd agree with).
Although yes, the Brits did have Corsairs aboard their carriers in numbers and operational before the US (not to mention the Brits were actually smart enough to use armoured flight decks).
And BronzeWhaler, no one ever disputed (as far as I remember) that the Brits didn't come up with a method to recover Corsairs better than the standard straight in approach
Almost entirely off topic (other than being about Corsairs, Brits, and Yanks):
If the Brits had wanted (and been able to clip the wings off the Corsairs on the carriers) a Major flying Corsairs form the Victorious found an airfield full of F4U-4s waiting to be shipped back to the US for overhauls, they had completed 500 hours while the British Corsair IIs had almost 2000 hours. Major Ronnie Hay (the one who found them) found the Navy Officer in charge and curiously asked if he could swap his Corsair II for a F4U-4, the Navy officer said he could since he was flying on the frontline, but he didn't because he figured the Admiral would see the gloss sea blue Corsair amongst the grey Corsair IIs on deck...he really should've had all the Corsair IIs from the Victorious fly back and swap them all for F4U-4s
-
-
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
Forum Rules
) that i don't in any way want to Britainise this amazing aircraft (i still think you guys made this word up!) but i think we deserve our due, don't you?
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Bookmarks