F4U-1A/D Corsair and its USN Carrier Service

[AquaShrimp]

Its been posted several times on this board before.  I don't have a copy of it on my computer.  With the recent bbs problems, I don't know if you will be able to locate it via the search function.

[AquaShrimp]

He can not post it... because he never saw it.

Once again, only your insanity outshines your arrogance.

[Saxman]

Its been posted several times on this board before.  I don't have a copy of it on my computer.  With the recent bbs problems, I don't know if you will be able to locate it via the search function.

How conveeeeeeeeeenient!

Ain't it funny how despite having been posted many times on this board before, none of the forum regulars--especially guys like Widewing who can pull just about any civilian or military chart, manual, spec sheet or test result imaginable out of their magic bag of tricks on request--don't have copies of it, or have even seen it to be able to back up your arguments?

[TimRas]

I'll wager that some research would show that the F4U was less likely to suffer a landing accident aboard a carrier than the Bf 109 was likely to suffer an accident landing on a normal airfield.....

That is entirely possible, although I don't believe the Navy was considering 109 as an alternative to the the F4U ().. when there was perhaps the most docile late war fighter available, the F6F.
Although the F4U was ultimately cleared for the carriers, the operational loss rate of F4U's (i.e., not directly caused by the enemy) remained significantly higher than F6F's.:


And the conclusion:


And further:

[Bodhi]

Once again, only your insanity outshines your arrogance.

Your ability to make stuff up is only superceded by clown boy. 

You should be proud.   

[Hazzer]

We Brits flew the F4u off carriers out of the box.

[Saxman]

We Brits flew the F4u off carriers out of the box.

The F4U-1 had its design issues (one of the most problematic was actually the tendency of the oleo struts to bounce or collapse) but I think it was always more a matter of landing procedures and pilot error. I know the Brits were the first to implement the landing pattern eventually adopted by the USN/MC (circular approach rather than coming in straight) but I'm not sure if that was already an established procedure for the Fleet Air Arm, or one they developed specifically with the F4U in mind.

The other problem wasn't so much the stall itself at landing configuration, but inexperienced pilots had a tendency to power on too suddenly, which with 2000 horse power and the accompanying torque suddenly being applied the plane would spin itself right into the drink. Experienced pilots with a lighter hand on the throttle could much more readily and safely regain control.

[Greebo]

I think the Fleet Air Arm first developed that curved approach for the Seafire, which had similar visibility (and landing gear) issues to the F4U. Incidentally F4U-1s were only used by the British for training purposes, the aircraft used over Norway were Mk IIs, effectively F4U-1As.

[Squire]

Yes, the FAA did develop the "curved" approach for the Corsair.

...The other reason that the Corsair was considered more dangerous for CV landings was its higher stall speeds. That, the torque, and the long nose made it a tougher a/c for trainees to master.

[F4UDOA]

TimRas,

That is an interesting statistic you are showing however it does not show the fact the F4U Squadrons that were being deployed on carriers were almost exclusively Land based squadrons (Navy and Marine) that were quickly carrier qualified to even get them aboard in the first place not to mention the difference in Navigation from a Carrier as opposed to Land based Airfield in the middle of the Pacific. One Squadron could get lost and lose 30 pilots and airplanes on a training mission in the Pac Theater.  Even the maintenance crews of the carriers had to "learn" the F4U on the fly.

It is nothing more than a miracle that the F4U loss rate is as good as it was off of carries in WW2. The testament to the F4U is that is served another 10 years in the US Navy and 20 years in France and Argentina after the war was over flying from Carriers well after the FW190 had become a museum piece.

[Baumer]

Nef,
Getting back to your original question, this is what I've found going through my books.

" The first US Navy Corsair combat deployment aboard a carrier began 9 January 1944 with USS Enterprise. VF(N)-101 (actually the second half of VF(N)-75, left behind in late 1943 because of equipment delays), equipped with four F4U-2s, beginning operations as part of Air Group Ten whilst under the command of Lt Cdr Richard 'Chick' Harmer (formerly the XO of VF(N)-75, Harmer was an F4F Guadalcanal vet, having served with VF-3 aboard Saratoga in 1942)."  from, "Corsair Aces of World War 2" by Mark Styling page 74. It goes on to state that the first night interception took place on 19 February 1944.

Later, on page 76 Styling states "VMF-124 and -213 began deck ops soon after they returned to the pacific equipped with 36 brand new F4U-1Ds in late 1944. The units boarded Essex as part of Task Force 38 at Ulithi on 28 December 1944, and launched their first combat sorties on 3 January 1945, when elements from both squadrons escorted TBMs attacking Kagi Airfield, on Formosa."

  Baumer

[Nefarious]

Thanks Baumer 

[Krusty]

Comparing the F4U-1 (a late 1942 fighter)

Isn't that misleading? Just counting the USN, they didn't do anything but carrier qualifications for a year, almost. Their first use in action wasn't until around Sept '43, and they didn't see much use until a few months into 1944.

Definitely a late war plane in that regard.

The Marines didn't get them into limited combat until a few months into 1943. Use grew in later '43 for sure, but I don't really think that qualifies as "late 1942".

Just sayin' 


EDIT: P.S. found this just now on wiki, quite an interesting stat.

"Statistics compiled at the end of the war indicate that the F4U and FG flew 64,051 operational sorties for the U.S. Marines and U.S. Navy through the conflict (44% of total fighter sorties), with only 9,581 sorties (15%) flown from carrier decks."

[Saurdaukar]

A 190A-4 was tested by the Navy and compared to the F4U-1 and F6F-3. They came to different conclusions. You can see the entire report on Mike Williams' site here: <snip>


My regards,

Widewing

Very informative post, as usual, WW.

However, if the test pilots remained partial to the F6F and F4U after having tested a 190A, why did Grumman elect to use the 190A as a blueprint for their next fighter, the F8F? 

I recall reading a report some time back (which you may have even posted here) in which the top Grumman brass, after having flown the 190, were so impressed that they basically set out to copy it - which is what gave birth to the Bearcat - an A/C with many of the 190's strengths (rate of roll, power to weight, etc) and the nullification of some of its weaknesses (introduction of a true bubble canopy, etc).

?

[Baumer]

I have always been a fan of the Corsair since I was a kid, and I have more books and other reference material on the F4U than any other aircraft. However, from all I've read, and herd first hand speaking with pilots who fly Corsairs (even today) is that it's quite a hand full.

The F4U-1 had the following documented issues during carrier qualifications with VF-17.

• Poor visibility
• Oil and hydraulic fluid on the windscreen
• Poor stall characteristics
• Full shock absorber compression upon landing and resultant landing bounce
• Hook skip
• Hook tip sheer

Most of these issues were identified by VF-17's engineering office Lt(Jg) Merle Davenport and Voughts' technical representative Jack Hospers. The poor visibility was addressed by changing the cockpit canopy and increasing the amount of seat travel. The fluids on the windscreen were resolved by a field modification permanently closing the cowl flaps directly in front of the windscreen. Many of the first units fashioned wing spoilers for the right wing so both wings would stall at the same time. The NAF developed a standard spoiler that was sent to all squadrons in mid 43. Initially VF-17 with the Tech Rep varied the air pressure in the shocks to come up with the best suitable settings to complete qualifications. The shocks were redesigned for the F4U-1A. Hook skip was a MAJOR early problem that resulted in the loss of 8 F4U-1s with their first 3 squadrons.  This was addressed with a change to the tailhook dashpot to lessen the recoil impulse. It was also found that the tailhook was to light and this was also redesigned in the F4U-1A. And the last problem was the tailhook tip sheer, several seemingly good landings resulted in hitting the barrier and the planes forward. It was found that the tailhook was actually digging into the wooden deck and the tip would sheer off as the plane was slowing down. This was also addressed by the above tailhook redesign.

With all that being said, the Corsair did go on to be a very good carrier aircraft.