Hi All, Came across this on a search.....(Still searching) and thought it was worth a read. The ratio figures are quite amazing over the years of constant confrontation with a worthy foe and fighter. http://www.vought.com/heritage/special/html/sf4u1.html
Interesting stuff spidge, I always had known that the Corsair achieved a high kill to loss ratio in the Pacific but it was interesting to read what the Japanese pilots thought of it.
I always liked the Corsair. Greg "Pappy" Boyington - one of its chief exponents - was so-called because he was in his early thirties by the time he started flying combat, elderly by WW2 combat pilot standards. Still, it didn't seem to impair him in any way.... Here he is: View attachment 1290
The Corsair was obviously the king of the Pacific. But what I don't get is why it was not produced more. They should have been at Pearl, they should have been at Midway, they were in production in 1940. Why was the Navy using F4Fs for so long? The Corsair and the Jugs used the same engine. The design of the Jug was probably influenced by the performance of the Corsair. The Corsair would have to have been large and strong framed to take the Double Wasp engine. Was it simply an issue that the F4F and the F6F's took less room on the carriers? I wonder it there was a problem landing them on the earlier carriers. Did they have arrestor wires on most carriers in WWII? Anybody know? I was thinking that roll out after landing might be too long for the F4Us or the impact force on touch down. Why would you not use a better performer?
My understanding is that the US Navy regarded the Corsair as too tricky to operate off carriers for most of its service life, and as a consequence it was used extensively only by the USMC from island bases in the Pacific, which became available only as the war advanced. Following the experience of the RN, who did operate Corsairs off carriers successfully, the USN re-thought and finally deployed its Corsairs off its own carriers late in the war...and indeed into the Korean conflict.
(adamcotton @ Nov 23 2005, 03:30 AM) [post=42016]My understanding is that the US Navy regarded the Corsair as too tricky to operate off carriers for most of its service life, and as a consequence it was used extensively only by the USMC from island bases in the Pacific, which became available only as the war advanced. Following the experience of the RN, who did operate Corsairs off carriers successfully, the USN re-thought and finally deployed its Corsairs off its own carriers late in the war...and indeed into the Korean conflict. [/b] That is true...a good source of information about the Corsair in British hands comes in Kenneth Poolman's "Illustrious," a history of that carrier.
Well whatever about the issues there is no denying that it was an excellent fighter. But here's a thought and I hope it hasnt been mentioned already, why wasnt it deployed in Europe?? Even as a land based fighter? I'm sure it would have been more than a match for anything the Luftwaffe could have thrown at it?
(Gotthard Heinrici @ Nov 23 2005, 03:32 PM) [post=42049]Well whatever about the issues there is no denying that it was an excellent fighter. But here's a thought and I hope it hasnt been mentioned already, why wasnt it deployed in Europe?? Even as a land based fighter? I'm sure it would have been more than a match for anything the Luftwaffe could have thrown at it? [/b] Good question! In theory, it could've had its tail hook removed to lighten it a tad, and the folding wing mechanism deleted so that RAF and USAAF ground crew would have had no problems maintaining it. But I geuss ultimately there was simply no need of it in Europe: the P-47 was in many ways like a European Corsair, and the fact that the US Navy for a long time rejected it for carrier operations may have sullied its reputation and made it unattractive to both the RAF and USAAF. Also, the ruggedness (and resultant weight) in-built to carrier aircraft may have rendered it superficially unattractive to the RAF in particular. Or perhaps it was simply that the Vought factory couldn't produce sufficient numbers to equip units in both Pacific and European theatres of war?
