Questions about the F4U-1

[oboe]

[list=1]

• Will it be carrier-capable?   I understand Corsairs weren't cleared for CV duty until 1944, while the F4U-1 was flying from Guadacanal in 1943.
• Will it be air-to-ground capable?   My sources indicate the -1 was purely a fighter/interceptor with no provision for bombs or missiles.  Not sure about drop tanks.[/list=a]
  
  It looks like a beautifully done model.  It may not see much use in the MA but it is a great addition for scenarios!

[Mathman]

1:  I should think it will be carrier capable, but it should have the crappy deck landing attributes the early versions had.

2:  As for carry A2G weapons, it should be able to, but only a single bomb.  I have seen sever pictures of the -1 carrying a bomb on a jury-rigged bomb rack or the later Brewster designed racks.

[Fester']

the f4u-1 is to corsairs what the p47d11 is to jugs

about the same speed but turns better and is lighter but has bad visibility from cockpit

[flakbait]

-1A Corsairs also lacked the right wing spoiler, so she's gonna stall like an evil mother. They had leading edge wing tanks that weren't protected too, so expect easy gas leaks from those. A little slower, a tad lighter, and a bit quicker in the turn. She should also really give you whiplash on takeoff; they didn't solve the big takeoff swing problem on this model. Jarheads used the -1A a lot out in the Pacific for fighter sweeps and mud moving, as the -1D was the first model qualified for carrier deck ops.

-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School
Put the P-61B in Aces High
"With all due respect Chaplian, I don't think my maker wants to hear from me right now. I'm gonna go out there and remove one of His creations from this universe.
And when I get back I'm gonna drink a bottle of Scotch like it was Chiggy von
Richthofen's blood and celebrate his death."
Col. McQueen, Space: Above and Beyond
 

[Toad]

Gave the book to my father, so correct me if I'm wrong.

I recall that Tom Blackburn, CO of the Jolly Rogers, carrier qual-ed his squadron in the -1A. The Jollies were, I think, the second squadron to qual in the Corsair. They deployed to the Pacific aboard and enroute the Navy brass changed them to a land-based squadron.

There is debate about whether or not this decision was based on logistics (no supply train setup for Corsairs on the boats, easier to supply them at a single land base) or based on the reputed handling of the Corsairs around the boat.

I do remember that Blackburn said the whole squadron carrier qual-ed aboard Charger, an old, short deck slow carrier. Don't recall that they lost anyone doing it. Recall that he mentioned a bunch of flat tires and busted wheels. He was pretty derogatory of Charger as a carrier and I think made the comment or implication that flying a Corsair onto a current fleet carrier would be much easier.

Anyone got the book?

[Pei]

Royal Navy FAA Corsair MkIs (F4U-1As) were being operated off carriers in 1943. I gather that at the time the US Navy didn't consider them suitable due to a number of incidents in trials. The FAA were desperate for carrier fighters at the time and were forced to make do.

[funkedup]

Supposedly the early Corsairs had very "bouncy" landing gear that contributed to the deck landing problem.  This would be pretty easy to model.  But remember that carrier suitability is determined by worst case.  Can the worst pilot bring the worst plane aboard under the worst conditions.  So even if HTC model this aircraft perfectly, some of us are still going to have no problem landing her on the CV.

[ 09-17-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

[HoHun]

Hi everyone,

I found Mike Crosley's "Up in Harms Way" quite interesting in its analysis of the Corsair's deck landing problems.

According to Crosley, the problem had aerodynamic roots: When the Corsair touched down with main wheels first from a flat angle-of-attack, the tail went down until the rear wheel struck the deck - increasing the angle-of-attack and creating enough lift to make the aircraft hop off the deck again. If the pilot was unlucky, the hook would miss the wires ...

The cure was a modification of the rear wheel strut which was lengthened considerably to keep the deck angle of the Corsair shallow enough to avoid the problem.

I guess the true reason the FAA was unimpressed by the difficulties of deck-landing the Corsair was that the difficulties they faced decklanding Seafires were considerably worse.

Crosley relates that the Seafire was tail-heavy due to the "nautical" equipment, mainly the heavy tailhook, and in the landing condition flew with the tail actually creating lift and the elevator deflected downwards.

Pulling back the throttle to get on the deck would reduce propwash over the horizontal stabilizer, killing some of the lift, lowering the tail, and causing the Seafire to float up. That was quite the opposite of what the pilot intended and could result in missed wires, a barrier strike, or worse ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)