Talk:Vought F4U Corsair
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Night Corsairs in Korea
- 2 British Corsairs fate
- 3 Query regarding propellor
- 4 NZ Corsairs
- 5 Speed units
- 6 thatch weave
- 7 British Designation
- 8 Article structure and readability
- 9 Recent changes
- 10 Aces/Navy Aces/Jet Aces
- 11 Most capable carrier-based fighter-bomber of World War II.
- 12 Tom Blackburn quote
- 13 Main page photo
Night Corsairs in Korea
The part about Korean war states that "Corsair night fighters were used to an extent." However, in Variants, we are told that F4U-4E and F4U-4N "would see great use during the Korean war." Surely "used to an extent" and "great use" can't both be correct, so which one is it? Khilon (talk) 07:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
British Corsairs fate
I've heard a story from several different sources that at the end of the war quite a few of the Corsairs used by the british were actually dumped overboard. Can anyone help verify - and if true could it be added to the article?
- It is correct. Per Barrett Tillman's 1979 book, p. 103:
…most of those on hand by VJ Day were unceremoniously dumped in the ocean. The US Navy had more aircraft than even it could use, and the lend-lease provisions held that all equipment retained by the British Commonwealth had to be paid for.
- Kablammo (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- The Abrams book goes into greater depth:
The other task of the carriers was a melancholy one—that of dumping Lend-Lease aircraft into the sea off Sydney. Under the terms of the Lend-Lease agreement, aircraft that were retained had to be paid for, or they had to be returned to the United States. The US did not want the aircraft and the British did not want to pay for them, so there was no alternative and the waste was inevitable.
- Abrams (1977) p. 83. Kablammo (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Query regarding propellor
The F4U and P47 were designed around the same engine, the F4U having a three-bladed propellor and the P47 four blades. Given the gull-wing design came about as a way of giving the propellor sufficient ground clearance without making the gear struts too long, why didn't Rex Biesel simply design the aeroplane with a four-bladed propellor? Surely one extra blade would mean the length of the blades could be shorter, requiring less ground clearance? Andy Loates Jr (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Typically, that's the case, and later F4Us did have four-blade propellors. FWiW, a design decision early in the process, could be later changed. Bzuk (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Generally you want to have as few blades and as large a diameter as possible. Each extra blade reduces propeller efficiency (weight, induced drag, tip loss and interference drag) while longer blades are more efficient but reduce the maximum rpms that can be applied. Adding an extra blade increases drag (so the aircraft uses more horsepower for the same speed) but allows more power to be applied, upping the top speed and acceleration if sufficient excess power is available. The change between 3 and 4 blades coincided with an increase in engine power.NiD.29 (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
"60 FG-1Ds which arrived post war were given serial numbers prefixed NZ5600 to NZ5660". This sequence is actually 61 planes - so what is the right number? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I could be wrong but did they left out NZ5613 because of the obvious? Just saying... --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- I removed the serials as we dont normally list them but it I understand that the sequence actually started at NZ5601 (to NZ5660) but since it was added here is has rippled into loads of wikipedia mirrors and repeated in all sorts of websites but try http://www.adf-serials.com/nz-serials/ MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
It is not totally correct to say that thatch weave exploits f4u's strengths. Thatch weave was developed for f4f's which turn worse and are as slow as a zero. The only advantage they have against a zero is greater durability under fire and a higher volume of fire. To exploit this you would act in pairs and weave to clear each other's sixes. That is a desperation maneuver. F4u on the other hand has a huge speed advantage, is comparable or better in acceleration, has a huge dive advantage etc. compared to zero. Thatch weave is not needed in f4u since you can just push your nose down and disengage. The zero pilot will either have to follow you and get shot down by your wingman when flying straight , or turn and go away, in which case you turn too and shoot him down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
The impression given here is that the marks were clear cut based on U.S. model type as well as manufacturer. In reality, they were classed only by manufacturer; Corsair MkII were Vought (F4U-1, -1A and -1D) and the MkIV were Goodyear (FG-1A and FG-1D) AND these (MkIV) came from the factory with clipped wingtips. (I believe the MkIIs were clipped in service.) JetMec (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC) 
Article structure and readability
Anybody any thoughts on this? There's some fascinating info that people have added to this article. I personally though found this hindered in terms of clarity by long sections that could be improved in terms of readability. I've had a go at:-
- adding some section headings to reduce the section size
- structuring things into a more logical sequence (eg having the WW2 sections next to each other)
- Tidying up what I think were formatting errors with some sections not being correctly aligned
Even with that, I'm still not convinced its yet perfect and does justice to what was a remarkable aircraft. There in though possibly lies part of the problem. For an aeroplane with so many points of note, its going to toy with our heads in terms of finding and deciding the optimum structure.
PS There's other stuff in there that still doesn't seem to be in the correct place in my humble opinion (eg some of the stuff in the 'Legacy' section.
- (Comment from uninvolved editor)It might be more helpful to ask for peer review on this article. It's rather hard to comment on readability and "perfectness" from an objective viewpoint. I'm not suggesting that asking for comments on the article formatting isn't useful, just that peer review might offer more.FMMonty (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
First, welcome to the new editors here, who appear both well-informed and motivated to improve this article. Some items for discussion:
- The USMC has been substituted for the USN as primary user in the infobox. The USN had almost twice as many squadrons flying Corsairs as the USMC. I don't have the raw numbers of aircraft. I've had a look at some of the sources (I have most of the Corsair-specific print sources) but so far it appears that the BuNos simply list planes allocated to the USN, which includes the USMC.
- The changes to make the aircraft more carrier-friendly included a simple technical modification to the oleo strut, greatly reducing the rebound on touchdown.
- The first carrier with combat-ready Corsairs was CV-17, which on arrival in Hawaii for the first tour of duty had its Corsairs removed not because of technical aspects, but because the Navy did not want to carry parts supplies for both the Hellcat and the Corsairs on carriers. VF-17, unwilling to give up its planes, elected to go land-based.
- Toward the end of the war Corsairs were placed aboard the fast carriers in preference to Hellcats. I will find the reasons, but I think I recall part of it was the Corsair's superior speed.
As new content is added, please include the sources. As shown above, some of the new changes may be subject to disagreement, hence good sourcing is important. Kablammo (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
What's with the use of meters for altitude? Other plane articles use feet with meters in parentheses. Historical accounts of planes of this era always use feet. The use of meters only is jarring and needlessly pedantic.188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
"The leader of one such unit, Lieutenant Guy Bordelon of VC-3 Det D (Detachment D), off USS Princeton (CV-37), become the Navy's only ace in the war, in addition to being the only ace to not score any victories in a jet aircraft."
This is a little confusing, stating that Lt. G. Bordelon was the Navy's only ace in the war, as well as the only ace to not score in a jet. This is confusing because there were hundreds, if not thousands of aces who never even touched a jet, let alone flew one, and it also implies that there were other Navy aces during the Korean War, contradicting the first half of the sentence.
- Agree I hae tweaked the words slightly to see if it makes more sense. MilborneOne (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Most capable carrier-based fighter-bomber of World War II.
- Since it is a bone of contention, although many sources starting with the venerable William Green have made that assertion, would you consider a revision saying "arguably" the most ... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Tom Blackburn quote
Lots of problems with this recent edit: undue weight, bad formatting, improperly cited. I've refrained from just reverting it because it seems like an interesting bit of information that may be salvageable, but would like some advice on whether/how to salvage it. --Yaush (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have other sources (eg: Dana bell 2014 http://www.hyperscale.com/2014/reviews/books/f4u1vol1bellbookreviewse_1.htm) that also say the Corsair was rated satisfactory as a carrier aircraft from the get go, and the only reason the Navy chose to use the F6F was to simplify the supply chain. That makes sense, because fleet carriers already had to carry spare parts, engines and maintenance accessories for three aircraft types - adding a second fighter would only complicate matters. The main source of the complaints about the Corsair's unsuitability was from G G O'Rourke, the captain of the Sangamon who took a real dislike to the aircraft. Qualification trials on other carriers in 1942 were generally positive, so it would seem there are grounds for doubts, at least. As it is, the statement:
The U.S. Navy received its first production F4U-1 on 31 July 1942, but getting it into service proved difficult. The framed "birdcage" style canopy provided inadequate visibility for deck taxiing. Even more seriously, the machine had a nasty tendency to "bounce" on touchdown, which could cause it to miss the arresting hook and slam into the crash barrier, or even go out of control. The long "hose nose" visibility problem and the enormous torque of the Double Wasp engine also created operational problems.
- is uncited, as are similar statements in the intro. In essence, undue weight has been given to the myth about the Corsair's unsuitability for carrier use, while none at all has been given to the Navy's need to simplify the supply chain. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 23:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Main page photo
Not that this necessarily matters, but the main photo at the top of the page as of 18/04/2016 00:25 GMT, captioned "A restored F4U-4 Corsair in Korean War-era U.S. Marine Corps markings", is clearly of a scale plastic model... A nice model, but still. Is there not a photo of the real aircraft that could go there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)