Did the US Navy use the Corsair?

Mike Carroll · Post by **Mike Carroll** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 9:36 pm

I lost the Lexington and Wasp in a carrier battle near Gili Gili early in the war, but was able to salvage the Navy Squadrons from both carriers and have been using them as landbased air.

All of my USMC F4F squadrons have upgraded to the Corsair. As I was going through my squadron lists I noticed that VF-71 (Wasp) had upgraded to the Corsair. Is this because they are landbased? Is this a bug? What happens when the Hellcat becomes available?

Thanks

Drex · Post by **Drex** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 9:46 pm

Mike Carroll wrote:I lost the Lexington and Wasp in a carrier battle near Gili Gili early in the war, but was able to salvage the Navy Squadrons from both carriers and have been using them as landbased air.

All of my USMC F4F squadrons have upgraded to the Corsair. As I was going through my squadron lists I noticed that VF-71 (Wasp) had upgraded to the Corsair. Is this because they are landbased? Is this a bug? What happens when the Hellcat becomes available?

Thanks

Corsair was definietely a carrier-based plane and it is available along with the Hellcat later in the war. Corsairs are practically indestructible and this may be a bug.

Shaggy · Post by **Shaggy** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 10:15 pm

The Corsair was accually designed for the USN to use as a carrier plane. But there were some problems in early trials, so it was given to the Marines to use as land based. The British figured out the problems with using the Corsair from carriers and the USN stated using them for carrier ops, but not until 1944.

I also had one of my carrier Wildcat squadrons upgrade to Corsairs when I temporarily transfered it to a land base. All my Wildcat squadrons that stayed on carriers upgraded to Hellcats. Since it happened to you also I assume that for some reason, a bug most likely, if the Wildcats are on land bases they upgrade to Corsairs and if they are on carriers they upgrade to Hellcats.

Not a problem though, even if the USN didnt use them for carrier ops until 1944 you can use them for carrier ops in the game. So if you end up needing them for a carrier you can use them. They work just as well as the Hellcats

Feinder · Post by **Feinder** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 11:37 pm

The major problem the USN had with the Corsair was it's very long nose. When looking down (at the deck) on approach, the long nose of the Corsair, created a much large blindspot than either the Wildcat or Hellcat. Fearing unnecessary losses of planes (or worse, pilots), the USN relagated most of it's Corsairs to the Marines, where landing on a dirt strip is considerably more forgiving than landing on a CV.

The British however, were very happy to take the time to develope proper landing techniques. They ended up approaching paralell to the CV's course, but to the side by 50 meters or so. At the end of the approach, the pilot would side-slip into the line of the flight-deck and touch down. The same technique was later adopted by the USN.

-F-

Mike Carroll · Post by **Mike Carroll** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 12:23 am

Thanks for the response. I do not mind having more Corsair squadrons they are certainly better than the Wildcat, and I do not have the Hellcat yet. I just do not want to use a "bug" (if it is one) to take an unfair advantage. It would seem that since my two Navy Wildcat squadrons have essentially taken a landbased role in the interim I can do this. I am already flying some Marine Corsair Squadron on the "jeep" carriers.

Chiteng · Post by **Chiteng** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 12:23 am

Actually off Okinawa they started to run short on F6F.
It is amazing how fast the F4U was suddenly discovered to be CV capable.

The Brits were not so slow.

Bobthehatchit · Post by **Bobthehatchit** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 12:32 am

Chiteng wrote:Actually off Okinawa they started to run short on F6F.
It is amazing how fast the F4U was suddenly discovered to be CV capable.

The Brits were not so slow.

We had little choice and used what we had inc Hurries with tail hooks on Jeep and mech carriers..

F4U is a really cool plane.

Shaggy · Post by **Shaggy** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 1:37 am

Bobthehatchit wrote: F4U is a really cool plane.

I agree I love Corsairs. Heres a good Corsair Web Site if anyones interested.

jcjordan · Post by **jcjordan** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 2:15 am

Mike Carroll wrote:I lost the Lexington and Wasp in a carrier battle near Gili Gili early in the war, but was able to salvage the Navy Squadrons from both carriers and have been using them as landbased air.

All of my USMC F4F squadrons have upgraded to the Corsair. As I was going through my squadron lists I noticed that VF-71 (Wasp) had upgraded to the Corsair. Is this because they are landbased? Is this a bug? What happens when the Hellcat becomes available?

Thanks

Mike, from my experience I think land based units will follow the upgrade path like VMF units - F4F to F4U. Only carrier based units should get the Hellcat unless a land based unit already has then assigned as original a/c when it comes in. I haven't played far enough in to get many Hellcats used that much as playing the Allied vs AI, I'm normally so far ahead that I quit & start another game.

Mike Carroll · Post by **Mike Carroll** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 7:00 pm

I have never had the Hellcat yet either, I am going to play this game to the bitter end. I wish I had the time to do a email game, that sounds much more challenging and interesting.

Feinder · Post by **Feinder** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 11:12 pm

Mike,

Send me a Turn 1 of 17 or 19 if you want. "SR4SGH@Earthlink.Net" I can usually only manage a turn every other night, so yes, it does take forever. We can play on 2-day turns, and it makes it go a more resonable clip.

Or if you'd rather, I'll take IJN and send you a turn.

No, I'm no expert at PBEM. I've only played one other opponent (my brother). Here is a thread that is basically the story of our game (it's a LONG read, but not just a boring combat report).

Feinder's PBEM game.

-F-

Edit : Crap, can't get the link to work. It's in the AAR forum from May.

CynicAl · Post by **CynicAl** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 9:43 am

Navy Fighter Squadron 17, the "Jolly Rogers," flew the F4U from shore bases in the Solomons during 1943.

SeaWolF K · Post by **SeaWolF K** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 5:59 pm

Also according to Tom Blackburn's (CO of VF-17) book The Jolly Rogers, his squadron was carrier qualified when it depolyed on the Bunker Hill in Oct of 1943 and was only transfered ashore because the Navy did not want to have to support a single fighter squadron equiped with a different aircraft than all the other carrier based fighter squadrons were operating at the time.

TheElf · Post by **TheElf** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 9:06 am

Feinder wrote:The British however, were very happy to take the time to develope proper landing techniques. They ended up approaching paralell to the CV's course, but to the side by 50 meters or so. At the end of the approach, the pilot would side-slip into the line of the flight-deck and touch down. The same technique was later adopted by the USN.

-F-

Hi,
This may have been a technique that the Brits used, but USN Corsair Squadrons used the same approach turn that we use today. The Day VFR Carrier pattern has not changed much in the last 50yrs.

It begins in the "break", or "Overhead". Offset slightly to Starboard, a single, section, or Division, breaks anywhere from the Stern to several miles upwind at 800'msl (1000'msl in WWII) with 30 sec b/w A/C (today we use 17-18 sec). Once "Dirty" and on downwind, the landing checklist is completed, and a descent to Pattern altitude (600'msl) is made. The approach turn starts at the "180", which is abeam the round down or LSO platform 180 degrees out from the Boat's heading.

The approach turn for the Corsair was probably different than the one we use today, but I don't fly Hogs so I can't tell you. Needless to say they probably had some wickets to meet to get to a good "90" and a good "start". What the approach turn (I'm going to guess b/w a 30-45 degree Angle of Bank) afforded the pilot was an unobstructed view of the LSO in the Crotch of the bent wing. Even after rolling into the groove he could still see the LSO. With that constant AOB the pilot could get signals from the LSO until the last moment when he leveled his wings, and lost sight of the deck for a few moments. At this point the pilot got one of 2 signals: 1. The Cut - a smart slice across the chest and then back across the throat. OR 2. the Wave off - Waving both paddles back and forth. If he got the wave off... max power, maintain Onspeed, and take her around. If he got the Cut,... chop the power to idle and strive for a "3-point" landing, which was the ideal attitude by which he "Set" the hook.

This approach was in use as early as MAR 43 when VF-17 began CQing in the Hog. SeaWolf is correct though. The real reason VF-17 didn't do its Maiden deployment aboard the Bunker Hill was due to supply. Once that decision was made most Corsairs went to the Marines, until there were enough of them in the inventory. At that point the transition to carrier ops was natural.

v/r
Elf

Feinder · Post by **Feinder** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 4:00 pm

I stand corrected Elf. I had read an article somewhere (perhaps one of my magazines I suppose), but I have no way of posting a source. Thanks for your very informed response!

-F-

Micah Goodman · Post by **Micah Goodman** » Sun Nov 09, 2003 9:52 am

Shaggy wrote:The Corsair was accually designed for the USN to use as a carrier plane. But there were some problems in early trials, so it was given to the Marines to use as land based. The British figured out the problems with using the Corsair from carriers and the USN stated using them for carrier ops, but not until 1944.

I have heard this same statement from several different people on the web and I would like to take a moment to correct this fallacy. The Corsair did operate from USN carriers as early as June 1943. VF-17 nicknamed The Jolly Rogers, Lieutenant Commander Tom Blackburn commanding was assigned to the USS Bunker Hill. From then until September 1943 VF-17 along with Vought (the designer of the Corsair) worked out most of the bugs the pilots were having with the plane. They practiced carrier based landings during the time the ship sailed from the Eastern United States until the ship arrived in Hawaii. When the ship arrived in Hawaii VF-17 was detached and replaced with VF-18. VF-18 was flying the Hellcat.

I quote from Mr. Blackburn’s book The Jolly Rogers, pages 99 and 100 when he was given news of the detachment, “Upon arrival Pearl Harbor, VF-17 detached from Bunker Hill. Proceed by first available transportation to Espiritu Santo and report to Commander, South Pacific, for duty. VF-18 will replace.
Typically, no explanation was given. I looked up at Bally, (Captain Ballentine the commanding officer of the USS Bunker Hill) and he just shook his head with a beaten air of finality; there was no sense in trying to squawk our way out of this one, the decision from on high was obviously final. Bally and I had talked about the possibility of something like this happening, and we both thought we knew why. As the Navy’s only carrier-based Corsair squadron, our place in the supply system was ambiguous to say the least, and troublesome. All the other carrier-based fighter units were equipped with F6F Hellcats or, in smaller ships F4F Wildcats. The hard realities of the supply system, we guessed, had simply overwhelmed the front office’s authentic desire to see us operating Corsairs from the carrier. I supposed that the decision had been made without emotion at AirPac headquarters, for they, after all, would be the people who would have to jump through hoops to keep us supplied. Bally was later told that this was indeed the reason we were relieved, and not-definitely not-because the front office thought the airplanes were unsuitable for carrier work.”

This clearly shows that the Corsair could have operated in the South Pacific during the Fall of 1943 had the US Navy not made the choice to pull VF-17 off of the USS Bunker Hill. I would like out of curiosities sake to know why people keep insisting that the British Navy solved the Corsairs teething problems when according to Captain Blackburn VF-17 did it in mid to late 1943.

mdiehl · Post by **mdiehl** » Wed Nov 12, 2003 1:03 am

The reason why the F4Us were reintroduced to USN CVs was their outstanding speed and intercept capability. Once the Japanese showed their hand in re Kamikazes, F4Us were in high demand because of their outstanding speed (enabling more distant intercept and more frequent instances of multiple pass throughs of enemy a/c formations).

Micah Goodman · Post by **Micah Goodman** » Wed Nov 12, 2003 2:14 am

mdiehl wrote:The reason why the F4Us were reintroduced to USN CVs was their outstanding speed and intercept capability. Once the Japanese showed their hand in re Kamikazes, F4Us were in high demand because of their outstanding speed (enabling more distant intercept and more frequent instances of multiple pass throughs of enemy a/c formations).

I understand why the USN used the Corsair. I am just curious as to where this thing about the Royal Navy came from. I have heard it over and over. Heck, I remember when UV first came out someone who reviewed the game complained that you could land the F4U on carriers, when according to him the 4FU couldn't land on carriers. And also according to him it was the Royal Navy that solved that problem. I just would like to know where people are getting their information from is all, and this in no way is a slam on the Royal Navy.

Hornblower · Post by **Hornblower** » Wed Nov 12, 2003 2:35 am

Maybe this will help.. Found this posted on the aviation history web page.. I DON'T SUBSCRIBE to this stance by the way ...

It was the British who finally worked out a method of landing the Corsair on their carriers in spite of the visibility problems caused by the long nose. Instead of the normal downwind-crosswind-final approach method, the British simply turned downwind, then made a slow, continuous curve which aligned the Corsair with the deck only at the last second before the aircraft touched down and trapped. This method allowed the pilot to keep the Landing Signals Officer in view right up to the moment the plane was over the fan-tail where the LSO gave the sign to either "cut" or make another attempt.

To alleviate the problem of oil and hydraulic fluid smearing the windshield, the Brits simply wired shut the cowl flaps across the top of the engine compartment, diverting the oil and hydraulic fluid around the sides of the fuselage. Numerous other simple, effective alterations were devised to alleviate the dreadful stall characteristics, landing bounce and tailhook problems (among others), and these modifications were incorporated into the production line. In 1944 the US Navy decided to again try landing the F4U on carriers, and this time succeeded. It turned out to be an extremely wise decision.

This isn't my opinion, just found it and thought I would pass it along- so no hornblower bashing

Please, and thank you...

mdiehl · Post by **mdiehl** » Wed Nov 12, 2003 2:36 am

I'd never heard this rumour about the Royal Navy. From looking at their CVs I am rather surprised that they used F4Us at all. Almost every time I see a historic photo of an RN carrier after 1942 the planes on deck are Martlets, Avengers, or some tailhook variant of a Hawker Aircraft product.

Did the US Navy use the Corsair?

Did the US Navy use the Corsair?

USN based VF-17 ashore for supply reasons