skidkid said:
And what self-respecting aviator would say anything different? "Ummm...well, I'd really rather be flying F-18s..." Whatever. That's why the historical question is the more interesting.
What percentage get Corsairs?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
What is your favorite Navy/USMC aircraft?
- Thread starter Av8or72Dan
- Start date
And what self-respecting aviator would say anything different? "Ummm...well, I'd really rather be flying F-18s..." Whatever. That's why the historical question is the more interesting.
What percentage get Corsairs?
Anyone who is .... "real" .... or "honest" ....phrogdriver said:
Jolly Roger said:
Not so "jolly", Roger???
Reference post # 17 on this thread:
I doubt it --- the Corsair ... original version, while a GREAT airplane overall .... was a disaster on carrier decks .(do some homework) ...
..... the gear was ... "fragile" and the nose was too long.A carrier pilot and an LSO's nightmare .... the F4U in ALL series, when referenced to the carrier deck ....
Jolly Roger
Yes. I am a Pirate.
A4sForever said:Not so "jolly", Roger???
Reference post # 17 on this thread:
I doubt it --- the Corsair ... original version, while a GREAT airplane overall .... was a disaster on carrier decks .(do some homework) ...
A carrier pilot and an LSO's nightmare .... the F4U in ALL series, when referenced to the carrier deck ....
Oh, Papa A4s, I have.
Thanks to the VF-17 and the Brits, most of the problems with the -1 variant were ironed out when the -1A came out in the middle of '43. The stiff oleos, setting the seat higher, curving in the glide slope and a littany of other fixes, made the Hog carrier ready.
A testiment to this fact is that VF-17 was land based in the New Georgia for over a month, flying combat missions, before being called to fly CAP over TF 50.3 during the Battle of the Soloman Sea. During which, VF-17 landed several times on the flights decks of the Bunker Hill, Essex, and Independence, to refuel. All without one mishap. And the Brits were using it over the F6F on their carriers, during same time frame.
When the -1C and -1D came out, well, the Corsair became a solid airplane. A testiment to this it was still used by the Navy and Marines in Korea. Hell, the Banana Republics were still using them in the '70s.
The F6F was a solid airplane, no doubting it. But it was a souped up Wildcat, where as the F4U was a brand new aircraft up from the ground up.
Hell, I'd give a couple of million to own one. Or a left nut fly one, who needs kids?
Just my .02. :icon_zbee :spin_125: :icon_carn :cowboy_12
luckechance
Registered User
Jolly Roger said:
The F6F was designed by the iron works essentially from the ground up as a back up to the F4U. After the capture of a few Zero's in Alaska the design was modified to take advantage of some of the zero's disadvantages. The F6F was a spectacular aircraft in the air. Easy to fly, plenty of firepower, good range. Not as fast as the F4U but more manueverable. The F6F would end up with a kill to loss ratio of around 19:1. Hard to argue with that.
My favorite Navy airplane wasn't listed either, I like my T-34C! :icon_tong As far as WWII goes, I would have liked the SBD Dauntless.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah .... and yeah.Jolly Roger said:
.... "However, numerous technical problems had to be solved before the Corsair entered service. Carrier suitability was especially troublesome, leading to changes of the landing gear, tailwheel, and tailhook. Additionally, a small spoiler was added to the leading edge of the starboard wing to reduce adverse stall characteristics. A noticeable problem with the Corsair design was its difficulty to recover from a developed spin, as its wing shape interfered with elevator control.
Due to visibility problems on landing caused by a combination of the pilot's position and the length of the nose, which made landing tricky for poorly trained pilots, and with the availability of the more docile Grumman Hellcat, the Corsairs were not introduced in any numbers for U.S. carrier service until the end of 1944.
When the aircraft finally saw combat it was nonetheless a superb fighter compared to its contemporaries, achieving a 10 to 1 victory ratio. However, nearly as many Corsairs were lost to landing accidents as the type downed enemy aircraft. ...."
But yes ... it is/was a GREAT aircraft. I would love to own one today. I would have LOVED to have flown one ... "then". I was born 40 years too late ....
Just my $20 worth .... :icon_rast
Jolly Roger said:
My .02 as ante and I raise you another .02:
The F4F has far more in common with the F3F* than the F6F.............and the F6F was an entirely new design as was the F4U. The "souped up" F4F was the FM-1 variant of the Wildcat built by General Motors because Grumman was busy cranking out Hellcats.
*Fuselage shape and landing gear configuration were virtually identical.
Jolly Roger
Yes. I am a Pirate.
heyjoe said:
No doubt, Joe. It was kind of meant as a disaparaging remark against the Hellcat.
The Lonestar Flight Musuem in Galveston has a F3F "Flying Barrel," it was one that was recovered from a mountain in Hawaii. It is a small, good looking aircraft. Grumman makes a damn good product, so did Vought.
Ok... of the ones listed... the F-14. All time favorite: F-4. Favorite prop: F4U. Favorite not-F-4 jet.. A-4.
The F-4 has a special place in my heart seeing as how I actually got a ride in an AF Phantom. As a former Phantom driver once said to me "This thing just goes to prove that if you use enough thrust on a rock, it'll fly."
The F-4 has a special place in my heart seeing as how I actually got a ride in an AF Phantom. As a former Phantom driver once said to me "This thing just goes to prove that if you use enough thrust on a rock, it'll fly."