Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Nefarious on June 12, 2008, 09:58:44 PM
-
I know the USN had some teething problems with the Corsair. When did its re-emergence on the US Carriers start in the Pacific?
Anybody have any exact squadron service dates (aboard Carriers) for the F4U-1A/D?
-
Very few F4U-1As saw service from carriers with the USN/MC. VF-17 operated a couple sorties off Bunker Hill, and there were other instances of 1As being loaded aboard for carrier-borne strikes, but for these were generally exceptions and the F4Us mostly returned to land bases, rather than the carriers.
It wasn't until 1945 you started seeing Corsairs regularly deployed aboard carriers, by which time the 1As were largely displaced by the 1D. AFAIK there wasn't much difference in the AIRCRAFT that made the 1D more suitable for carrier service--all those changes were in place with the 1A--but by the time the Americans had their landing procedures refined the 1D had supplanted the 1A.
I think the exception was the F4U-2 nightfighter variant, which saw regular carrier deployment as early as 1943/1944.
-
I think the first large scale use of USN CV based F4Us would have been the Fall of 1944 in Leyte Gulf .They would have been F4U-1Ds.
-
They're lucky they weren't fighting the Germans. By the end of 1944 and 45, the Corsair wasn't the only 400mph fighter around. In fact, the Germans gave the Corsair a dismal evaluation report.
-
Oh, and how does the P-38 or P-47 (two of the most widely used US fighters in the ETO in 1943-44) stack up so much better than a Corsair? or even a P-51B for that matter? It can hold its own if compared to any of them, each a/c of course hase particular strengths, and weaknesses, as they always do.
I will also add the Germans never test flew a Corsair, because they did not ever fight it, so I would wonder what "evaluation" they supposedly gave it (even if they had one) was based on. The only time the Corsair was used in Europe was the Royal Navy/RAF Tirpitz raids in 1944 in Norway, and the air combat was minimal. The Germans knew very little about the type past what the Japanese could tell them, and they were certainly not dismissive about the a/c capabilities.
I could see the F4F-4 Wildcat not being suitable for ETO ops in 1942-3, because it lacked the performance. Thats another story.
-
The Germans did capture a British Corsair intact, its unclear if they got round to test flying it though.
http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/aircraft/FAACapturedAircraftHomepage.html (http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/aircraft/FAACapturedAircraftHomepage.html)
-
I think the first large scale use of USN CV based F4Us would have been the Fall of 1944 in Leyte Gulf .They would have been F4U-1Ds.
Ive been looking into that and I can't find any info to support that notion, one site I found said that nearly all of the Navy Fighter Squadrons serving in or around Letye starting at October 20th, 1944 were F6F-5s or FM2s/F4Fs.
-
They're lucky they weren't fighting the Germans. By the end of 1944 and 45, the Corsair wasn't the only 400mph fighter around. In fact, the Germans gave the Corsair a dismal evaluation report.
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: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf)
Here's a portion of their conclusions:
(http://home.att.net/~c.c.jordan/190vsF4U-1vsF6F-3.jpg)
EDIT:
I failed to mention that the F6F-3 (Hellcat Mk.I) and the F6F-5 did see a fair amount of combat covering the invasion of southern France. When the Luftwaffe did show up in limited numbers, they were badly mauled by Navy Hellcats. Oddly enough, Navy FAC pilots were flying P-51Cs from land bases, with the F6Fs flying BARCAP and providing close air support.
This F6F-5 shot down 4 Luftwaffe bombers and transports.
(http://home.att.net/~c.c.jordan/F6F-France1.jpg)
Here we see F6F-5s preparing to take off from the USS Tulagi to pound German strong points.
(http://home.att.net/~c.c.jordan/F6F-France2.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
My regards,
Widewing
-
Wasn't this "A-4" in fact a fighter-bomber conversion (either an early F- or G-series) thus offering less performance ? And by February 1944 the A-4 was a very old variant surpassed by better performing versions.
BTW - the german pilots loved the automatic engine control, way better than fiddling with too many options in other aircraft like the Bf 109.
-
No, the A-4 was a standard fighter variant.
-
Hmmmm.... What about the F4U-1A/D carrier service dates? Did they see service during the Letye Invasion or the Battle of Leyte Gulf?
-
Ok I checked a few books, looks like there were a small number of VMF(N) Corsairs (F4U-2 Night Fighters) that did serve at Leyte (some aboard USS ENTERPRISE) and there were USMC Corsairs that flew from land bases in the Phillipines, as Leyte was invaded, but the bulk of *CV based ops* was not untill late 44/early 1945 for the most part for USN/USMC Corsairs.
-
Thanks for the help Squire <S>
-
Hmmmm.... What about the F4U-1A/D carrier service dates? Did they see service during the Letye Invasion or the Battle of Leyte Gulf?
F4Us saw combat in the Philippines, but were land based at Tacloban. These were Marine F4Us, with fixed wings and no tail hooks. They arrived on 3 December, 1944. In October of 1944, the Navy authorized F4U squadrons to begin carrier qualifications. The first of these units to go aboard a carrier were VMF-124 and VMF-213, who were loaded aboard the Essex at Ulithi on 28 December, 1944. The first combat mission was on 3 January, 1945.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Thanks WW.
-
The 190A-4 is hardly a late 44/45 plane. The Luftwaffe evaluation report I am referring to compared an F4U1 to a 190D. There was no comparison, the 190 was superior.
-
ah, missing details are important.
-
Aqua,
Post that report, please. I'd like to see that for myself.
-
The 190A-4 is hardly a late 44/45 plane. The Luftwaffe evaluation report I am referring to compared an F4U1 to a 190D. There was no comparison, the 190 was superior.
The F6F-3 and F4U-1 were contemporary to the 190A-4. Comparing the F4U-1 (a late 1942 fighter) to the 190D is lopsided. Compare it to the F4U-4 and see what happens.
My regards,
Widewing
-
No, the A-4 was a standard fighter variant.
There's something fishy in this report, the aircraft should have been a Fw 190 G-3 fighter-bomber variant with Werknummer 160057, captured at Gerbini in Sicilly. Or was CE No 2900 assigned to more than one aircraft ?
-
There's something fishy in this report, the aircraft should have been a Fw 190 G-3 fighter-bomber variant with Werknummer 160057, captured at Gerbini in Sicilly. Or was CE No 2900 assigned to more than one aircraft ?
If you read the test document you'll see that it is mentioned that this 190 was converted from a fighter-bomber version.
My regards,
Widewing
-
If you read the test document you'll see that it is mentioned that this 190 was converted from a fighter-bomber version.
Does not explain how an A-5 based G-3 became an A-4. Some other things to question are possible changes to the engine for the use as specialized fighter-bomber, different engine setup, external air intakes with dust filters or others. The engine they used does not sound to be healthy as it abruptly lost all power at about 33k feet or rough running due to spark plug fouling.
The weight list is also wrong as the MG 17 ammo weight is way off, should be a little less than the MG 151 ammo weight.
Also they did not say the converted the aircraft back to a standard fighter but they used ballast weights to simulate a fighter loadout.
If you account all the negative aspects this Fw 190 was burdened with the test outcome is fairly good.
-
The F6F-3 and F4U-1 were contemporary to the 190A-4. Comparing the F4U-1 (a late 1942 fighter) to the 190D is lopsided. Compare it to the F4U-4 and see what happens.
My regards,
Widewing
The F4U went through a stagnant period due to its poor carrier handling. The -1 and 1D had roughly the same performance. It just didn't compare to late war Luftwaffe aircraft.
-
The F4U went through a stagnant period due to its poor carrier handling. The -1 and 1D had roughly the same performance. It just didn't compare to late war Luftwaffe aircraft.
The 1A and D's acceleration and rate of climb were markedly superior to the -1 with the addition of the paddle-prop. All the changes needed to make the F4U suitable for carrier service were introduced in the 1A: it was lack of effective operational procedures more than anything else that kept the F4U off carrier decks (VF-17 proved as early as 1943 the Corsair was perfectly suitable for carrier operations. It was LOGISTICS at this point that sent the Corsairs ashore). The 1C experimented with upgrading the armament to 20mm cannon, while the 1D also introduced a significant increase in the aircraft's ordinance loadout. No major changes in performance were introduced because...well...they weren't NEEDED.
Then consider that the only REAL change of note to the F4U-4 was a new engine and a four-bladed paddle-prop and that was enough to make it the best all-around prop fighter of the war.
The Dora was faster and accelerated better, and may have had a MARGINAL advantage in rate of roll over the early mark Hogs. Sustained rate of climb would also be superior, but this is mainly important in getting to initial altitude and not into actual combat. Zoom climb would be very closely matched as a result of the F4Us greater mass--in fact the Corsair may have had one of the best zoom climbs of any prop fighter in the war. While in weight of fire the German Iron had an advantage the ballistics of the Browning .50cal were vastly superior making for a more accurate gunnery platform. In any sort of maneuvering fight the F4Us of all marks were superior to the 190 at all airspeeds, with the 190's only possible advantage (and a slim one, if any) being in rate or roll. The only real option for the Dora against the F4U would be to start with the advantage and just keep picking. Any 190 that tried to maneuver with the F4U would be dead.
Just because a design doesn't have a dozen different marks doesn't mean it's STAGNANT.
So I say again: Put it up. I want to see this evaluation.
-
it was lack of effective operational procedures more than anything else that kept the F4U off carrier decks (VF-17 proved as early as 1943 the Corsair was perfectly suitable for carrier operations. It was LOGISTICS at this point that sent the Corsairs ashore).
Just too many people were killed while trying to land the "Ensign Eliminator".
-
A lot of this was the error of inexperienced pilots during the low-speed approach over-revving the engine when the aircraft began to stall, with the resulting increase in torque flipping them into the drink.
-
Just too many people were killed while trying to land the "Ensign Eliminator".
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.....
I have accident stats for the F4U in WWII, anyone have them for the 109s?
My regards,
Widewing
-
The FAA didn't seem to have too much trouble landing them using the curved approach.
-
Aqua,
Post that report, please. I'd like to see that for myself.
He can not post it... because he never saw it.
-
He can not post it... because he never saw it.
Never saw it, or never EXISTED?
:noid
-
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.
-
He can not post it... because he never saw it.
Once again, only your insanity outshines your arrogance.
-
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.
(http://www.countrykeepers.com/images/church_lady.jpg)
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?
-
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.:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v424/timppa/pic1.jpg)
And the conclusion:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v424/timppa/pic2.jpg)
And further:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v424/timppa/pic3.jpg)
-
Once again, only your insanity outshines your arrogance.
Your ability to make stuff up is only superceded by clown boy.
You should be proud. :rolleyes:
-
We Brits flew the F4u off carriers out of the box. :aok
-
We Brits flew the F4u off carriers out of the box. :aok
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
:salute Baumer
-
Thanks Baumer :salute
-
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."
-
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).
?
-
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.
-
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).
?
Myth
-
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).
The Grumman F8F "TIGERCAT" twin was based on the earlier company project the XF5F "SKYROCKET" (Look it up on Wikipedia) - not the FW-190. When the first project of a twin-engined fighter for carrier use was rejected by the US NAVY - Grumman shelved the project and started work on what would later become the F8F. All this work started long before the Allies ever got their hands on a flyable FW-190.
:salute
-
Corwin (Corky) Meyer, a senior test pilot at Grumman at the time (later chief test pilot) wrote the following:
"In early 1943, Grumman officials were invited to England to see the captured fighters of the Axis powers and to fly some of them. The test team included: Leroy Grumman, president of Grumman and test pilot during and after WW I; Bud Gillies, vice president flight operations and a test pilot current in all American airplanes at that time; and Bob Hall, chief engineerexperimental, a famous test pilot of Grumman and other airplanes of the Gee Bee era.
Of all the airplanes they saw, they were most fascinated with the Focke-Wulf 190. It not only offered sprightly performance, but it also had excellent flight characteristics with a gross weight of 8,750 pounds and only 1,730hp. The Hellcat was 3,200 pounds heavier with just 270hp more. Both Gillies and Hall evaluated the Fw 190 and found it to be the aircraft they would have liked to have designed themselves. It was exactly what the Hellcat follow-on aircraft should be. The only things the Fw 190 lacked were a good gunnery-lead computing angle of vision over the nose and a structure that would withstand carrier operations.
The Focke-Wulf impressed them so much they felt compelled to hurry home and put together an airplane of this gross weight in time for the water-injected Pratt & Whitney R-2800 C model engine of 2,400hp (War Emergency Power) to be installed. This would give our naval aviators a big performance increase over the newer Japanese fighters and would still retain the proven performance of the P&W R-2800 series production engines installed in the Hellcat.
The F8F design was started immediately on the trio's return. Mr. Grumman took a direct hand in its design. As the design progressed, it became obvious that meeting the 8,750-pound gross weight of the Focke-Wulf would be difficult. The structure required to withstand the loads encountered during carrier operations hadn't been required in the Fw 190 and would impose significant weight penalties on the new design. "
My regards,
Widewing
-
The Grumman F8F "TIGERCAT" twin was based on the earlier company project the XF5F "SKYROCKET" (Look it up on Wikipedia) - not the FW-190. When the first project of a twin-engined fighter for carrier use was rejected by the US NAVY - Grumman shelved the project and started work on what would later become the F8F. All this work started long before the Allies ever got their hands on a flyable FW-190.
:salute
Isn't that the F7F Tigercat?
-
(http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg66/choker41/DSC00080.jpg)
Here is a Tigercat
-
Corwin (Corky) Meyer, a senior test pilot at Grumman at the time (later chief test pilot) wrote the following:
"In early 1943, Grumman officials were invited to England to see the captured fighters of the Axis powers and to fly some of them. The test team included: Leroy Grumman, president of Grumman and test pilot during and after WW I; Bud Gillies, vice president flight operations and a test pilot current in all American airplanes at that time; and Bob Hall, chief engineerexperimental, a famous test pilot of Grumman and other airplanes of the Gee Bee era.
Of all the airplanes they saw, they were most fascinated with the Focke-Wulf 190. It not only offered sprightly performance, but it also had excellent flight characteristics with a gross weight of 8,750 pounds and only 1,730hp. The Hellcat was 3,200 pounds heavier with just 270hp more. Both Gillies and Hall evaluated the Fw 190 and found it to be the aircraft they would have liked to have designed themselves. It was exactly what the Hellcat follow-on aircraft should be. The only things the Fw 190 lacked were a good gunnery-lead computing angle of vision over the nose and a structure that would withstand carrier operations.
The Focke-Wulf impressed them so much they felt compelled to hurry home and put together an airplane of this gross weight in time for the water-injected Pratt & Whitney R-2800 C model engine of 2,400hp (War Emergency Power) to be installed. This would give our naval aviators a big performance increase over the newer Japanese fighters and would still retain the proven performance of the P&W R-2800 series production engines installed in the Hellcat.
The F8F design was started immediately on the trio's return. Mr. Grumman took a direct hand in its design. As the design progressed, it became obvious that meeting the 8,750-pound gross weight of the Focke-Wulf would be difficult. The structure required to withstand the loads encountered during carrier operations hadn't been required in the Fw 190 and would impose significant weight penalties on the new design. "
My regards,
Widewing
Thats the one.
-
Isn't that the F7F Tigercat?
Yea, my bad - posting while half asleep.
WW, is correct - they are talking about the F8F BEARCAT not the F7F TIGERCAT - better read closer next time. :rolleyes:
-
There's still a big difference between saying one plane is BASED on another, and saying that they're built around a specific concept, in this case the 190s power-to-weight ratio.
-
Agreed.
Somebody looks at a P-51, loves the top speed, so makes another inline engined plane with a high top speed.
Doesn't mean it was copied off of the P-51.
Means the designers got some ideas, and went on to make their own, better, version with that initial inspiration.
-
To get back onto the captured version do a Google search for the following terms.
captured German F4U Corsair
On Wikipedia...yes it is not the bible but it gets a starting point on this search:
At least one Corsair was captured by the Germans, this was Corsair JT404 from No. 1841 squadron (HMS Formidable). Wing Leader Lt Cdr RS Baker-Falkner made an emergency landing on 18 July 1944 in a field at Sorvag, near Bodø, Norway. The Corsair was captured intact and it is not known if it was taken to Germany.[49]
More listing from the Fleet Air Arm Archive here at this link.
http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Aircraft/FAACapturedAircraftHomepage.html
-
Point is, it's NOT KNOWN if it was ever taken back to Germany, much less whether or not it was actually evaluated by the Luftwaffe.
AquaShrimp keeps talking about some mythical German evaluation that shows the F4U was an inferior aircraft, yet when pressed to put up or shut up, he doesn't have it and was posted in a thread that was conveniently lost when the boards crapped on themselves.
-
Exactly. This point has been debated repeatedly since I first came into AH back in March of 2001. Heck it was even debated ad nauseam for a couple of years when I was in the Fighter Ace community way back in 1999-2000 and I remember it being debated in the AW and Warbirds communities as well.
Some things we will never know because lots of stuff was lost and may never have been worked on by the Germans. For something that was "listed at Rechlin for 1944 under repair"; I seriously doubt that it ever made it off the ground again even if it was transported. Also why would the Germans have cared about testing it out? I could see the Brits, Russians and Americans testing captured planes since they would have been going up against them but the limited action that this plane would have seen against the Germans would have relegated it to a status of "hey we might want to look at fixing this aircraft by 1950" in my mind.
-
Means the designers got some ideas, and went on to make their own, better, version with that initial inspiration.
Which is almost exactly what I wrote.
Methinks some people in here are arguing for the sake of argument.
-
Saxman,
I'd read somewhere that the curved approach developed by the British was already standard procedure by the time they began to fly the Corsair due to the fact that the Seafire suffered from the same issue of forward visibility (over the nose) on very short final to the carrier.
I can't prove it, because I have no idea where I read it, however.
<S>
-
Ok I checked a few books, looks like there were a small number of VMF(N) Corsairs (F4U-2 Night Fighters) that did serve at Leyte (some aboard USS ENTERPRISE) and there were USMC Corsairs that flew from land bases in the Phillipines, as Leyte was invaded, but the bulk of *CV based ops* was not untill late 44/early 1945 for the most part for USN/USMC Corsairs.
Quote me if I'm wrong, but didn't the F4Us see alot of service on the invasion of Iwo Jima?
I remember reading about how the first marine to die from bullets coming form Iwo Jima was a F4U Corsair pilot. Thats the earliest F4U carrier service I can think of since they absolutely had to do it.
Maybe Peliliu? I've seen videos of F4Us hitting Peliliu with Napalm and I know that some were land-based on the island while fighting was going on.
any help here?