And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
I think their combat record was pretty good, but . . . huge horsepower required a huge prop, so when the plane was on the ground, its nose had to be pretty high up in the air. They cranked the wing so the landing gear struts wouldn't have to be so long. Not sure if they had any fuel tanks in the wings; if so, were they only in the small, inboard anhedral sections? They needed more fuel so they put a tank between the engine and the cockpit, which had to be moved further aft to allow room. Taildraggers (planes with tailwheels instead of nose gear) are notorious for poor pilot visibility around/over the nose at low speed / high angle of attack, and the Corsair was especially bad. Two ways to land a taildragger: "wheel landings" - on the mains with the tail up in the air, and "3-point" - where the goal is to have all three wheels contact simultaneously. 3-point allows much lower landing speed and is the proper way to get a taildragger aboard the boat. (Much less chance of a bounce, puts the tail hook closer to the wire, etc.) Unfortunately, that nose-high business meant that when the pilot started to flare (bringing the nose up to get into the 3-point attitude) most of the carrier - and virtually all of the deck - disappeared from his view. He would be focusing on the Landing Signal Officer ("Paddles"), another pilot stationed aft, on one side of the deck with a flag in each hand. Paddles would mimic the planes' roll attitude with his arms and flags, to tell the pilot when he needed to roll right or roll left in order to get parallel to the deck. One of two things would happen next. Paddles would give a "CUT" signal, telling the pilot to vigorously throttle back to idle - causing the plane to drop out of the air, come crashing to the deck on all three wheels (if done right), with the tailhook catching the Number 3 arresting wire. If the pilot was too low Paddles would see that he was going to crash into the rear of the deck. If he was too high, he'd miss all the wires and would have to immediately go to full-throttle for a go-around. If his wings weren't aligned reasonably well with the deck, he would hit a wing or hit heavily on one main tire, with probably undesirable results. The Army and the Navy didn't want these planes. (The Army had some nosewheel aircraft. All of the Navy's carrier planes were taildraggers, but none of them had the extreme nose-high, aft cockpit characteristics of the Corsair.) The Marines took what they could get and overcame the negatives in order to take advantage of the positives. Focused will and determined aggression.
I am no one's aviation authority (even though I did stay at the Holiday Inn Express last night). My wife's dad, who passed away early and a year before I met her, flew Corsairs in WWII and Korea. I wish I could have talked to him about his experiences.
According to a History Channel program, it seems that after the Corsair was produced, the Navy belatedly figured out that its long nose posed too many challenges for carrier operations. The Marine Corps, engaged in land-based air operations such as at Guadalcanal, took the aircraft and excelled with it. The Black Sheep Squadron received it and "a legend was born."
The US also offered the Corsair to the Brits. The Brits figured out that if the flight deck was approached from the carrier's stern in a parallel direction with the carrier's course, and if the pilot conducted a tight button hook turn back toward the bow of the carrier, landing the Corsair was no problem. The Navy then saw the light and had squadrons of Corsairs in carrier operations by the end of the war.
My general impression was that the difference in the performance of the F4U and the P-51 was minimal. In an alternate universe, had the aircraft ever faced each other in a fight in the air, it was far more likely that the difference in the pilots' skill levels would have determined the outcome, not the performance of the aircrafts themselves.
Survivorman99, I had a Corsair near-miss too. Pop had been a Marine infantry machine-gunner in China, 1937-1939. When WWII started, he was inspecting B-24's and PBY's at the factory in SoCal. (Essential war work, and they wouldn't let him quit to reenlist.) Late in the war, when our prospects looked more promising, they let him leave Consolidated to reenlist in the Corps. He was assigned to a Corsair squadron (not as a pilot) embarked aboard USS Salerno Bay. Pop and I didn't get along too well, until his last 4-1/2 years. (Had a stroke and lived in a nursing home until he died, a few weeks shy of his 99th birthday.) In those years we got along much better and learned to appreciate each other. Unfortunately, though I then became more curious about his life, by that time he couldn't remember a lot of it. (He once asked me if my father was still living, and on another occasion he said he wished he had a son like me. We take what we can get.) So, I didn't learn much about Corsairs from Pop. Inspired by your post, I did some digging on-line, and found this: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/f4u-corsair-world-war-ii-legend-explained-163327 Pieces of the puzzle.
What I have read about the landing process, and there is video, is that when they pass down the side of the carrier (bow to stern) and turn for final approach, that turn continues all the way until they cross the deck and then kick the rudder and level the wings to straighten out. In other words, a 180 degree turn. This keeps the rear deck, and the LSO, in sight at all times until the pilot decides he is correctly positioned to catch a wire. Some pilots could not handle it, as it is significantly different from a normal carrier landing. If the aircraft had battle damage that affected precise handling, that might be cause for bailing out, instead of possibly killing the pilot and damaging the deck.
British carriers had armored flight decks, while the American decks were mostly wood. Crashing on the deck was not a problem for HMS carriers. Made kamikaze attacks on them less of a disaster, if I recall correctly.
Corsair - my favorite WWII plane!
ReplyDeleteA bear to taxi.
ReplyDeleteThis example is a F4U-4. This version flew in both WWII & the Korean war.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite WWII plane also
ReplyDeleteI like them too. Second favorite fighter I guess.
ReplyDelete#1-der Gabelschwanz-Teufel.
That and the P38
ReplyDeletePretty plane. How did it actually perform compared to other fighters of the time?
ReplyDeleteThere's a strong argument that the -4 model is the best prop fighter every made.
DeleteMy Favorite Prop Fighter! They are massive Tanks of the air!!
ReplyDeleteI think their combat record was pretty good, but . . . huge horsepower required a huge prop, so when the plane was on the ground, its nose had to be pretty high up in the air. They cranked the wing so the landing gear struts wouldn't have to be so long. Not sure if they had any fuel tanks in the wings; if so, were they only in the small, inboard anhedral sections? They needed more fuel so they put a tank between the engine and the cockpit, which had to be moved further aft to allow room. Taildraggers (planes with tailwheels instead of nose gear) are notorious for poor pilot visibility around/over the nose at low speed / high angle of attack, and the Corsair was especially bad. Two ways to land a taildragger: "wheel landings" - on the mains with the tail up in the air, and "3-point" - where the goal is to have all three wheels contact simultaneously. 3-point allows much lower landing speed and is the proper way to get a taildragger aboard the boat. (Much less chance of a bounce, puts the tail hook closer to the wire, etc.) Unfortunately, that nose-high business meant that when the pilot started to flare (bringing the nose up to get into the 3-point attitude) most of the carrier - and virtually all of the deck - disappeared from his view. He would be focusing on the Landing Signal Officer ("Paddles"), another pilot stationed aft, on one side of the deck with a flag in each hand. Paddles would mimic the planes' roll attitude with his arms and flags, to tell the pilot when he needed to roll right or roll left in order to get parallel to the deck. One of two things would happen next. Paddles would give a "CUT" signal, telling the pilot to vigorously throttle back to idle - causing the plane to drop out of the air, come crashing to the deck on all three wheels (if done right), with the tailhook catching the Number 3 arresting wire. If the pilot was too low Paddles would see that he was going to crash into the rear of the deck. If he was too high, he'd miss all the wires and would have to immediately go to full-throttle for a go-around. If his wings weren't aligned reasonably well with the deck, he would hit a wing or hit heavily on one main tire, with probably undesirable results.
ReplyDeleteThe Army and the Navy didn't want these planes. (The Army had some nosewheel aircraft. All of the Navy's carrier planes were taildraggers, but none of them had the extreme nose-high, aft cockpit characteristics of the Corsair.) The Marines took what they could get and overcame the negatives in order to take advantage of the positives. Focused will and determined aggression.
I am no one's aviation authority (even though I did stay at the Holiday Inn Express last night). My wife's dad, who passed away early and a year before I met her, flew Corsairs in WWII and Korea. I wish I could have talked to him about his experiences.
ReplyDeleteAccording to a History Channel program, it seems that after the Corsair was produced, the Navy belatedly figured out that its long nose posed too many challenges for carrier operations. The Marine Corps, engaged in land-based air operations such as at Guadalcanal, took the aircraft and excelled with it. The Black Sheep Squadron received it and "a legend was born."
The US also offered the Corsair to the Brits. The Brits figured out that if the flight deck was approached from the carrier's stern in a parallel direction with the carrier's course, and if the pilot conducted a tight button hook turn back toward the bow of the carrier, landing the Corsair was no problem. The Navy then saw the light and had squadrons of Corsairs in carrier operations by the end of the war.
My general impression was that the difference in the performance of the F4U and the P-51 was minimal. In an alternate universe, had the aircraft ever faced each other in a fight in the air, it was far more likely that the difference in the pilots' skill levels would have determined the outcome, not the performance of the aircrafts themselves.
Survivorman99, I had a Corsair near-miss too. Pop had been a Marine infantry machine-gunner in China, 1937-1939. When WWII started, he was inspecting B-24's and PBY's at the factory in SoCal. (Essential war work, and they wouldn't let him quit to reenlist.) Late in the war, when our prospects looked more promising, they let him leave Consolidated to reenlist in the Corps. He was assigned to a Corsair squadron (not as a pilot) embarked aboard USS Salerno Bay. Pop and I didn't get along too well, until his last 4-1/2 years. (Had a stroke and lived in a nursing home until he died, a few weeks shy of his 99th birthday.) In those years we got along much better and learned to appreciate each other. Unfortunately, though I then became more curious about his life, by that time he couldn't remember a lot of it. (He once asked me if my father was still living, and on another occasion he said he wished he had a son like me. We take what we can get.) So, I didn't learn much about Corsairs from Pop.
ReplyDeleteInspired by your post, I did some digging on-line, and found this: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/f4u-corsair-world-war-ii-legend-explained-163327
Pieces of the puzzle.
What I have read about the landing process, and there is video, is that when they pass down the side of the carrier (bow to stern) and turn for final approach, that turn continues all the way until they cross the deck and then kick the rudder and level the wings to straighten out. In other words, a 180 degree turn. This keeps the rear deck, and the LSO, in sight at all times until the pilot decides he is correctly positioned to catch a wire. Some pilots could not handle it, as it is significantly different from a normal carrier landing. If the aircraft had battle damage that affected precise handling, that might be cause for bailing out, instead of possibly killing the pilot and damaging the deck.
ReplyDeleteBritish carriers had armored flight decks, while the American decks were mostly wood. Crashing on the deck was not a problem for HMS carriers. Made kamikaze attacks on them less of a disaster, if I recall correctly.
Delete