CAG 88 Action Report 16 Aug to 2 Sep 1945 - F4U vs F6F

[streakeagle]

This is the full report: http://www.mansell.com/Resources/special_files/FOLD3/Carrier%20Air%20Group%2088%20-%20Reports%201944-08-18to1945-10-25.pdf

I found this in a post on the DCS World Forum.
The report has a lot of interesting information.
But part of it includes an assessment comparing CV operations of the F4U to the F6F.
This busts a lot of myths about the relative performance and engineering of the two aircraft.

I don't know if this link will work, but here is the pertinent page:

[streakeagle]

While not as rugged, overall, the FG-1D (F4U-1D) was superior to the F6F in almost every aspect.
There have been some claims about F6F performance being underrated due to a flaw in its pitot.
But operationally, the F4U proved to be faster/better in almost every performance category: speed, climb, acceleration, range, etc.
The big surprise for me was the assessment that the F4U was considered easier to land with better visibility out of the cockpit.
The superiority of later versions like the F4U-4 is why the Corsair was operational throughout the Korean War, while all but the bigger, better Skyraider were retired.

[oboe]

Good find.

I'd always heard the Corsair had difficult visibility because of the long nose, and the British developed a curved landing approach for carriers to overcome that.

They had the same engine didn't they?  I think the Corsair must've had the more aerodynamic airframe.

[streakeagle]

The typical story about the long nose being a big problem is directly contradicted by the above report. It seems they had more trouble launching F4Us than landing them. But a key statement was about how the F4Us no longer broke in half while landing. Now, only their tailwheel breaks all the time. Is the F4U-1D/FG-1D the first variant that was as good or better than an F6F for carrier operations? I am partial to the F4U-1A since it is lighter than an F4U-1D. But maybe the F4U needed that weight to be a good carrier-based fighter?

[streakeagle]

Refreshing my memory with wiki, it seems most of the improvements needed for successful carrier operations occurred with F4U-1A. But there is no mention of the reinforcement of the fuselage frame to avoid breaking in half.

[Gooss]

Great find.  Thanks.