Allied cooperation... the P-51 Mustang wouldn’t have been a great fighter without the British Rolls-Royce Merlin engine. The Corsair only became a great naval fighter only after the Fleet Air Arm solved the carrier landing issues.

@@Idahoguy10157 Don't forget the P-51 was one of the greatest gun platforms for a fighter plane. And lest not forget how many bomber crews were saved by the escorting 51s up to the 17 tens start of their bombing runs. Many a crew of B17s were saved just before their bombing runs. During the bomb runs the P-51s would look for targets of opportunity like trains, planes on the ground and factories. I got to fly back seat in a 51 back in the 70s for $200 !!! Shortly after that I took flying lessons.

John Quimby, did you know that 1911 45 acp pistol some were manufactured by the Singer sewing machine company

@@butchyshoe P-47s would have actually had the range to escort B-17s had Hap Arnold and his "Bomber Mafia" not banned the use of drop tanks for pursuit fighters early on. Hap Arnold was so convinced bombers could outrun fighters and didn't need escorts, he actively handicapped escort fighters. At the time of the Schweinfurt-Regensburg mission, a 200 gal centerline tank for the P-47 already existed as did the hardpoint to mount it. It would have comfortably given the P-47 the combat radius to escort on that mission. Lives were needlessly lost just for the sake of trying to prove their bomber doctrine. In order to cover up their criminal short-sightedness and avoid the fallout that would follow, the Eighth Air Force published reports after the war that selectively choose correct but out of context facts. Saying that only the arrival of the P-51 gave them the escort fighter they needed. But comparing a late 1944 Mustang with a 1943 Thunderbolt with smaller tanks than later models. The Eighth Air Force lied by omission to cover their asses and the cover story was so convincing, people still believe it to this day.

To be honest, the first thing I look for when choosing a new fridge is its ability to survive multiple deck landings.

One of my aunts worked as ground crew at the factory

@John Munro I've read that remark about the Beaufighter as well although it was only the one aircraft delivery. Also that the lack of complaints was due to shame.

Did they land them on the carrier?

The Air Transport Auxiliary www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/online-exhibitions/air-transport-auxiliary/ata-expansion/

@Chrris Smith You think women today couldn't do the same? That's what sexism is all about.

The Royal Navy were desperate for a modern naval fighter. None of the British naval fighters were very good, and planes like the spitfire were never designed to absorb heavy landings on a carrier deck, so they couldn’t really use that . Even the naval version of the spitfire, the seafire, spent more time being wrecked on deck landings than it did shooting down enemy aircraft. The RN desperately needed a fighter designed specifically as a carrier fighter from the word go, which is why they bought the Corsair.

@@greva2904 The Corsair had much better range as well.

It'll blow your mind to discover the French had them as well and used them from carriers. Saw extensive combat in the late 40s into the 50s. So the Viet Minh were on the receiving end of the Corsairs for a few years.

@@earthenjadis8199 The US wanted Corsairs to be brought back out of mothballs for use as ground attack aircraft in Korea. But there were hardly any left, they’d all been scrapped. So they had to use mustangs instead, which were far from ideal as their water cooled merlin engines were much more susceptible to damage from AA. They lost a lot of mustangs that way, from damage Corsairs and Thunderbolts would have survived.

With a name like Burnside, I'm pretty sure YOU are British too... Its a very British name.

My dad was an aviation machinists mate in the USN. Like your granddad, the Corsair was his favorite, and he touched nearly all USN and USMC carrier aircraft. The plane he disliked most? The F2A Brewster Buffalo, which he worked over at Norfolk Naval Air Station in 1941. "A hunk 'a junk. We couldn't keep those Buffalos in the air".

@@redskindan78 Interesting about the Brewster. The one my grandad complained about was the Seafire. It was adapted and not designed for naval operations and even with the modifications they took a heavy pounding which could make them a nightmare to keep in top shape.

Yeah, innit! I thought that, too. Then the interviewer says ‘well, how did you know that’s true?” “ ‘Cos I was with him when he did it!” Quality!:)

Bat, not back.

@@brianjones3191 The phrase off your own back is often used to refer to something done by using one's own initiative, but in origin it's a cricketing idiom, off your own bat, but both phrases are considered correct.

@@RedMac63 "Back" may one day become accepted by dictionaries, because it is very often mistakenly and incorrectly used. Many incorrect words eventually become accepted through continual use. I expect this one will join them. But for now, it is still incorrect.

Quite!

Glad you liked it. Spread the word :)

The RN helped development of the Corsair in the carrier role when the USN had taken a pass... They tuned the landing gear to eliminate a the bounce, and developed the circling approach to work around the visibility isues for having the cockpit so far back... Great airplane, fantastic fighter. But like all new introductions into operations had teething problems and the Brits did a fantastic job of working through them to help the Corsair meet its intended design goals. That said, for the USN the Hellcat made more sense... Cheaper, simpler to maintain, easier to fly by average pilots who could now hold their own against anything the Japanese throw at them also given the advantage of newer tactics the plane early begin to come into its own at that point

me too!!!

We are going to have to fight.

@@halojump123 We are sadly, or we'll both be gone.

I found some audio from a pilot who flew with him on that strike. I may do a short video based on that.

The forgotten army👌

Most people don’t realise the Meteor was operational from mid 1943 (and was 10% faster than the Me262). The American P-80 Shooting Star was operated in Europe from 1944.

The Meteor F.1 and F.3 (early) was powered by Welland jet engines, and had a top speed lower than wartime F4U Corsairs. (Around 415 mph in level flight.) Allan, I don’t know where you read that Meteors were faster than Me-262’s, but contemporaneous models were definitely not close to the Swallow in terms of top speed in level flight. I suspect they’re comparing the Meteor F.8, operational in the early 1950’s. The “proper” WW2 Meteor version to compare to 262’s is the F.3 w/2,000 lb thrust Derwent I engines, first full squadron of which was activated on the continent in March, 1945. They had a top speed in the mid-400’s, about 100mph slower than Swallows.

​@@allangibson8494so not true! Meteor was NOT faster than the ME262! 480mph vs 540mph

@@tettehpecku4393 Me262 - 490kt 560mph Gloster Derwent Meteor - 520kt 606mph The Derwent Meteor had twice the thrust of the Me262 but was structurally limited as to maximum Mach number (as was the Me262). As for swept wings - the DC-3 has more wing sweep than the Me-262… The Meteor exceeded the Me262’s performance in every way in late 1944.

Spoke with a WWII USMC pilot who flew Corsairs off Guadalcanal. Absolute legend!

Do you know that the US Navy rejected the Corsair because of the stall issue? The British applied the stall strip and rescued the design for naval use.

DOUBLE G ................Brits doing a tidy job of it ????????

Same thing happened in the far east - my Grandfather was on a carrier at the end of the war and witnessed essentially brand new aircraft being dumped into the sea rather than being shipped home.

I’d imagine they wouldn’t need them by then anyway. Marginally obsolete except as ground support and a severe lack of opponents. :)

Read the book "Hap Arnold" by Bill Yenne. At the end of WWII thousands of aircraft were scrapped, not just the F4U Corsairs e.g B-17, B-24, B-29, P-51, P-47 etc. . This pull quote from page 285. "USAAF disposed of 33,600 aircraft, including 10,934 heavy bombers and 8,014 fighters." Yes, whether the British or U.S. Navy there was no further need for many WWII aircraft. Sad but true.

Thank you for the refresher that made me go...Hey...I knew that!!! It's one of those things I knew, and until you made your comment, I didn't remember I knew it. More important...It's one of those things I do not want to forget!!! Then, there is always the Original Black Sheep, Greg "Pappy" Boyington. I bring him up because I had the honor and privilege of not only meeting him, but having photos taken with him, as well as several of his autographed Lithos, so, I think that covers why I had to bring him up. I personal, while brief, connection. I have another story about the F4U Corsair, and one of the Marines that became an Ace flying it, and also restored one and I saw him flying it in simulated battle conditions in the early 80's, but I digress. Just really great memories. Thank you again...

Ed McMahon then flew Unarmed Artillery Spotter Planes during the Korean War, now that takes some nerve!

IIRC, the engine was also used in the B-29 Super-Fort. That's real size and power for single seater.

@@kirbyculp3449 The Pratt&Whitney R2800 was famously used in several of the best twin-engine bombers and transports, but not in any 4-engine bombers at all, nor even any 4-engine transports until one French design [ *Edit* ~Stupidly left out the definitive 4-engine application of the R-2800 : The indispensable & immortal Douglas DC-6! I knew I was forgetting something...] after the war. The larger/heavier, more powerful (and initially much more troublesome & unreliable) Wright R-3350 was the engine whose ongoing development was prioritized as the basis of the B-29 program, and whose poorly-configured installation remained the unresolved "Achilles Heel" of that airplane. The R-3350 never really fulfilled its potential until post-war, in the Lockheed Constellation airliner, whose development during the war had been delayed precisely because of all the troubles the engine had in the B-29.

@@boatrat So which engine was fitted to the Douglas Sky Raider ?

@@markfryer9880 The Wright 3350 was eminently successful in both the Skyraider and the Constellation, but the Connie came earlier. As such, the Connie was the pertinent point re. delays/problems with the 3350 development, which was the issue at stake in the B-29 comment I was answering. Connie was technically accepted by the military earlier in the war (than the Skyraider's delivery in late '45), although the Douglas C-54 had largely usurped that role by the time the Lockheed was ready to go.

The 109s, Spits, & 51s are about the same size as the c-172 or to keep with a tail dragger, a c-170. Check wing span, length, & height. Think about that. Then you realize why the warbirds could so easily torque roll if power was applied too rapidly. Sttod beside all at KSMO one day. Was amazed at the height of the vertical stab height of all 3 while they were sitting on the ramp. Tiny aircraft. The radial powered birds were bigger. Couldn’t believe the size of the P-47 in comparison.

Ha! Yeah, I noticed that. Pretty impressive, having bits of your actual engine blown off and still going. What was next - “could have a wing shot away and still do a mission?”

@@geordiedog1749 actually happened.

thats a rather impressive running theme with many American aircraft of the time. Corsair, Thunderbolt, Dauntless, Flying Fortress, and many others. The heavy aircraft like bombers its understandable in a way to lose an engine or two and go for a while but single engine craft its quite a bit more impressive.

The joys of a radial engine

@@radioguy1620 holy hell. No wonder they worked so hard to stuff the damn things into the ass of a tank.

The problem you have with others accepting your statement is that with the known issues with stalling and bouncing on landing putting restrictions on the Corsair's operations it's easy to accept the standard narrative, just like with the British heavy bombers being limited in wing span to 100ft due to the hanger doors. I accept that the USN wanted to simplify supply lines and to standardise on the more docile Hellcat, but could you give your source for the production issues with Vought? In the case of the British heavy (Stirling) and medium bombers (Manchester and Halifax), as stated in the Air Ministry specifications for them, most maintenance was to be done outside meaning you didn't need hangars. Couple this with the Type C hangars that were introduce in 1936, the same year as the specifications for the Stirling, and Mancester and Halifax were issued, had doors that could open to 120ft. The real reason, as given by Colin Sinnott in his book The Royal Airforce and Aircraft Design 1923-1939, was that the Air Ministry considered larger aircraft too large for a single pilot to control in extreme circumstances. But the hangar door reading is now the accepted orthodoxy.

@@neiloflongbeck5705 I put some US Navy documents on my site a couple of years ago - if you Google search "Corsair Carrier suitability" or "F4U carrier suitability" it should be the top result. One document states that they do not intend to assign any Corsairs to aircraft carriers in August of 43 because the entire allotment is needed for marine squadrons. The simple fact that the Navy brought both Brewster and Goodyear in to produce Corsairs speaks volumes as to Vought's capacity early in the war.

@@neiloflongbeck5705 A well research documentary would require several documented sources. Here is just a small sample. Revealed in the book "Widowmaker" by Tim Hiller-Graves that the U.S. Navy was in fact using the "curved approach" for Corsair carrier landings as early as February 1943. "The first Corsair arrived in February (1943) and an intensive program began with the CO (Lt. Cdr. John "Tommy" Blackburn) playing a leading part. He realized early on when undergoing deck trials with the USS Charger in Chesapeake Bay, that the Corsair had to be handled differently to other aircraft when landing on a carrier. Blackburn reasoned that a standard , straight on approach was unsuited to this aircraft, because of its poor forward visibility when landing. Above all else, a pilot needed to see the deck and the batsman's (LSO) instructions and that could only be achieved with the Corsair using the curved approach from the port side ." Following this there is a letter from Blackburn which goes on to describing Corsair landing issues. Also read the document : Corsair F4U Navy Carrier Landing Issues" The link: facebook.com/groups/570146806355342/files. Other books "Whistling Death" by Boone Guyton. Guyton was the primary test pilot of the Corsair for Chance Vought. "F4U Corsair at War" by Abrams. Read the chapter by Norman Hanson Royal Navy Corsair pilot.

So they don't open the boxes and lay the belts inside the wing magazines? A Thunderbolt setup video shows that technique.

The Spitfires had the same system for the machine guns.

The last RNZAF Corsair - made by Goodyear - is based at Hood Aerodrome, Masterton, in New Zealand and flies at the airshows around the country. At the Classic Fighters Omaka air shows it is parked in the hangar for the night and, before it is towed outside for the start of the day's activities, we, the fans, are allowed to get up close and personal with it, and all the other aircraft in the hangar - things like P40s, a P51 and a couple of Mark IX Spitfires, but I digress. The first impression of the Corsair is how BIG it is when sitting beside the afore-mentioned aircraft. America had access to impressive radial engines and were able to design equally impressive aircraft to make use of all that power. The Corsair is painted in US markings and colour scheme and, at on the of the Classic Fighters Omaka airshows that I attended, the announcer, when asked why it was not in RNZAF markings and colour, said it would cost around NZ$15,000 to make the change.

@@MarsFKA There is one lost in the hills behind Westport, lost heading to Wigram in 1944, it has never been found despite numerous searches. The pilot was Brian Barstow.

Straight from the hourses mouth.

Very true. They had their necks on the line and knew the score.

It really is great. Much more interesting, I think, than hearing from contemporary sources.

To sit down and listen to the stories that they could tell.

I love the praise that was given, the criticism, and the occasional “dig”. Great interviews!

We, who got to listen, sre lucky.

It's my understanding that the clipped wings were a nod to the limited overhead space found in RN carrier hanger decks, and that the improved stall characteristics were an unforeseen (but welcome) side effect.

They clipped the wings so they would fit in the british Carrier hangers. A small triangle was added to the right wing to help with it's nasty stall speed characteristics.

@@Nathan-pw7do I wonder if the pilots employed the twist from their radial engines.

@@myparceltape1169 it's my understanding that engine torque is what caused the left wing to stall first at low speeds. They added the triangle to help make the wings stall equally.

Does a Mosquito with only the pilot in it not count? Two man bomber, +400mph late 1941, before the USA joined the war.

@@andrewbarton8525 P-38 is a pre-war aircraft - when in development - it flew over 400mph in Jan-Feb 1939. .

The claim was for a single engined, single seater

@@alecblunden8615 at 2:31 "single seat fighter" was all that was stated, no mention of single engine.

@@5stardave It is certainly mentioned elsewgere

Absolutely. Norman was quite old for a pilot, compared to the majority. He said most of the pilots in the Fleet Air Arm, were from new Zealand & Canada. The FAA had a recruitment centre in Auckland which cntributed to them joining the FAA, where as the RAF did not,

Yeah, I saw it there years back. The best way to describe the fuselage is basically a massive long engine with a cockpit and tail strapped to the back of it!!! Great to hear our lads made good use of it :)

I think theres one in the Fleet air arm museum.

If I cut 8 inches off the Airfix kit there wont be any wing left 🤔

@@MrRugbylane Eight Scale inches, you Pelican!

My brother gave me a small Corsair kit for Xmas. Funny thing is that the numbers are reversed on the box artwork. Some pelican mirror reversed the artwork to make it fit better on the box and didn't correct the orientation of the various numbers.

I was thinking the same thing. Nice to hear from the British pilots regarding my favorite warbird!

Very interesting I've never heard that before, I never new it was used as a dive bomber.

Not sure about that. As said in the video the oleos caused the Corsair to bounce so the undercarriage wasn't short originally. Never heard of undercarriage being used as dive brakes nor the Corsair being used as a dive bomber in the since of anything other than a shallow dive. That said you are correct about the prop not being the reason for the gull wing but I can't remember the reason given for the gull wing.

The Hellcat's wing is under the fuselage, not requiring a longer landing gear. The P-47 was an Army Air Corps plane not expected to do carrier landings.

@@5stardave Look at the Hellcat again.

Something about wings being 90° off the fuselage instead of 180° like a Wildcat was a performance design feature, along with the ( shorter ) landing gear being able to be used in a dive brake setting.... was the primary reason for the bent wing. Other fighters did indeed have large props as well, but that's always the first thing you hear about the Corsair..."they had to bend the wing cause the prop was so big"...and it doesn't tell the full story.

It also helped manage the uneven stalling caused by the large prop. If flying straight, the plane could fly slow enough that turning left could stall the left wing suddenly. Curving in allowed the pilot to feel the plane approach stall speed and correct. I believe there was a small spoiler added to one of the wings added fairly early to help stop them rolling over at low speeds.

@Lindy Last yes they did.

The Spitfire and so the Seafire, also needed a curved approach due to the lack of visibilty over the nose.

I thought that didn't sound right.

After the commenwealth should its potential.after 1944 hard to get in Australia and New Zealand.

@@stephenh3919 You need to restrict your comments to topics about which you actually know something and not just know anti-American bit points.

@@stephenh3919 Don't be any more delusional than you have to be.

@@stephenh3919 Yeah, like the leftists claimed the "adults" had returned when Biden took office. How has that worked out? The leftists who actually believe in their BS are stupid.

Just before Japan attacked the U.S, they where making everything. They where under cutting everyone as China does today and making junk just as today. Then as today it was the Democrats giving the breaks for japan.

It was really a Marine plane more than a Navy plane, until the war's end.

I'm probably overdue adding such a page to www.armouredcarriers.com

Fulmar went to war when the F3F was the USN's front-line fleet fighter. Time must be taken into account. It's like comparing the Corsair to the Sabre: They belong to different generations. Of course one wouldn't want to go to war in 1945 with a Fulmar or F3F! In 1940, though, there were no Corsairs!

Believe it or not, the Fulmar has the highest number of kills by any FAA aircraft. Sure it was really the only one out there, in the early years, but the number still stands.

Not true at all. The USN already had the Hellcat and had no need to push the Corsair into carrier service.

@@cvr527 Exactly. The Hellcat was more than capable of handling anything the Japanese could throw at it. Even after the problems with the Corsair were sorted out the Hellcat remained the USN's primary fighter for the rest of the war.

@@RandomDudeOne Yes I agree, but the Corsair was in production till 1952, seven years after the war. The reason being it was to be used as a close ground support plane. It saw action in both Korea and Vietnam. It was faster than the Hellcat by the way.

The Hellcat was far easier to fly around the boat, particularly among new pilots fresh from training. But the Corsair, while earning the nickname Ensign Eliminator, had significantly better performance. That's why the Corsair was found on carrier decks into the Korean War. The peacetime Navy, prior to 6/1950, didn't need to rush rookie pilots into combat. The better aircraft survived into the Jet Age.

@@Chilly_Billy Charles Lindbergh flew the Corsair, well here is what I found; Lindbergh carried one 2000 lb. bomb plus a 1000 lb. bomb under each wing probably the heaviest bomb load ever attached to a Corsair! That is half a normal bomb load of a B17. I fully understand a B-17 fully loaded was able to carry such a load for a mission into Germany. It didn't say how far the Corsair carried it, but it wouldn't have been very far. It was a rugged plane no doubt, and top speed was 50 mph faster than the Hellcat.

Yes. It is interesting how this tale became part of the pilots' self-narrative, though. That's what I aim to do with these videos - retell their stories, even though they were constrained by their limited perspectives and individual contexts.

@@ArmouredCarriers And I certainly appreciate your efforts. Thank you. Makes me want to finally get around to going through my grandfather's journals and logs. I really wish I'd talked to him a bit more while there was still time. Oh, and just to be clear, it's not my intention to denigrate the accounts of these pilots. We are all limited by our own perspectives and the info available to us. I am fully confident that they are telling the truth as it was known to them.

"The U.S. Navy finally accepted the F4U for shipboard operations in April 1944, after the longer oleo strut was fitted, which eliminated the tendency to bounce." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_F4U_Corsair#Navy_service

I could be wrong but I understand that another issue was that the Hellcat can store in a smaller footprint at comparable performance, thus allowing more planes on the carrier.

Yeah? So why did the yanks take them all back once they realised that the British COULD land them?

Beautiful machines

Yes, I have been trying to find audio archives for the RNZAF. Not all that much luck so far. I've had more luck with the RAAF operations. And the USMC on Guadalcanal etc. I'll start tackling them in the next few months. Perhaps starting with the Bismarck Sea.

Yep true story

They were no more difficult to land on a carrier than a Seafire and the FAA received approx. 2,000 Corsairs under Lend Lease which was virtually free.

Lol

Wildcat was the boss

like the bell airacobra

“Carrier Pilot” was a great read.

Later versions also had extended tailwheels to improve vision over the nose.

Thinking of some people I know, they might have glued wooden blocks to the pedals. :-)

They clipped the wings a little bit too to help with the bouncy landings.

@@GrahamMilkdrop Clipped wings were so they would fit in the hangar, armored Brit carriers had lower overhead in hangar.