F4U-1's not able to be on carriers?

[decaro]

A well-supported argument, but what about all those posts re Brit pilots having to learn how to carrier-land a Corsair the same way they had to learn to land Seafires, i.e., by an indirect approach?

Certainly that had something to do w/delaying the deployment of Corsairs onto carriers.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: hgilmer

... It makes you wonder what other stories we have never heard because no one ever thought to sit down and write a book or create a show based on those events.

Tune in to the History Channel's "Dogfights"; it doesn't really deal w/logistics, but there's a wealth of other aviation info in this show.

[88l71]

Thanks for the post, Luddite.

I wonder what the comparison would have been for the F6F-6 vs. the late model Corsair, had Grumman decicded to build it. My point being essentially that Grumman could have,if it wanted to, further developed the F6F, but decided to build the Bearcat (and what a plane that would have been if it had got to see action!!) instead. Of course, the Bearcat was of less use to the USN postwar as jet fighters began to relegate prop-driven planes to ground attack duties, and while the Corsair could carry a heavy bombload, the Bearcat was designed more as a pure fighter,with emphasis placed on a high power-to-weight ratio rather than the ability to carry a big payload of bombs/rockets.

In regards to my much earlier post on this thread, I just found it interesting that two highly reputable sources, an official Navy test report and a Grumman test pilot, both list the F6F-5 as having similar performance to the F4U-1,and the former establishes the F6F-5 as being a 400+ MPH fighter,while most sources claim the Hellcat's top speed as being considerably less (and most I have seen also list stats for the earlier -3 Hellcat, not the improved -5 version)

I've read Kepford's book and his take on the issue. It's a shame, I think, that none of the top Hellcat aces decided to publish an account of their wartime experiences....