This was absolutely masterful. I indirectly owe a lot to the Corsair: my uncle was a Corsair crew chief in the USMC during WW2 and while he didn’t talk much about the war, he loved that I was interested and told me all about the F4U; he had nothing but admiration for the aircraft. That started my interest in aviation, and ultimately began my career first as a USAF pilot, and now as an airline pilot. Thanks for this outstanding documentary, with such insightful interviews of very brave men!
Well ... First time I saw this acft. was in " John Hazard " comic stripe, I was struck by those bent wings, oil coolers and canopy, probably I was 11 or 12 years old. I went to the Air Force of Chile Officers Academy, 40 hrs. T 34 Mentor, then to Webb AFB . Texas. Then A - 37 B Dragonfly . Just retired from Qatar Airways. ( B 777 ). Also flew the DH Vampire . Cheers!
My dad was an Aviation Machinist's Mate and plane captain, 1941 - 1945. That must be about the same as a USMC crew chief. The Corsair was his favorite plane, and he worked on all the different carrier aircraft. I grew up loving the F4U.
Excellent video! When I was stationed with the USAF in the UK in the 1990's, I had a couple Spitfire/Seafire pilots sign a drawing I did. I asked the FAA pilots which plane they liked better, the Seafire or the Corsair. Being a yank, they looked at me with a derisive smile knowing what I was up to. They had to give it to the Corsair. I asked them about the strut issue and they got a kick out of me knowing about it. I thank my lucky starts that I had the honor to meet these gentlemen. They are gone, but not forgotten.
My grandfather flew Corsairs off the Illustrious including the Operation Meridian strikes. I just received his flight log as a 40th birthday present and have started to research his wartime experience.
@@DistantThunder89 yeah, flew top cover on one mission and RAMROD airfield strafing on Sabang and Palembang. He said sitting on deck ready to go was absolutely terrifying. After the raids, friendly fire from another ship hit Illustrious and took put him out of action for a few months and he didn't see any further action during the war. He was cited as being "above the average" at the time of the injury and he remained a pilot instructor for 5 years after the war.
An Exceptional Documentary about an Extraordinary Warplane told by the Incredibly Courageous Pilots who flew them. TH-cam does not get better than this. Thank you Armoured Carriers for preserving the priceless piece of history.
Loved hearing these British WW2 vets talk about their experiences with the Corsair. These tough men never seem to be very self impressed. This week I had the privilege of hearing a veteran of the siege of Khe Sanh talk a bit about his unit’s 77 days there and the terror he felt. I wound up at that 12 step meeting he spoke at randomly after missing my regular 7am meeting. He had not told his story in 10 years and I rarely attend that meeting. Saw him again the next day somewhere else and he had just, that morning, heard from another guy who had been there at Khe Sanh . The two had not spoken in 50 years and they had just spoken after he’d told his story for the first time in a decade. Absolutely amazing. Sat on my hands that next day to make sure I didn’t ask him for more of the story, the Viet Nam portion of his story was really only incidental to what he was sharing, as odd as that sounds. Writing this in an anonymous forum is really the only way I can tell this. Crazy.
An Irishman born in England (sic- the diaspora), at boarding school in the 50s and 60s, the decent english tend to be diffident, which I like. Hubristic, bombastic, arrogant yanks do not impress me. I appreciate this comment. Slante. ☘
Fascinating and absorbing film. My father served aboard HMS Glory with 1831 NAS, Corsairs, in the Pacific Fleet in 1945 as an Engineering rating. He was present on deck for the occasion of the Japanese Surrender off Rabaul , 6th September 1945. He remained in the RN and retired as a Lt Cdr in the 1970's after a full career in the Fleet Air Arm.
5:02-5-10, beautiful approach, nice and smooth and slow. Then stall, drop the aircraft, bounce and then, beautiful landing. It doesn't get any better in the one-of-a-kind Corsair air frame. No pilot in the world can tell me any more than I already know.. It's a forgotten art.
Lucky for us like our U.S.M.C., they did not have a true independent Naval fighter budget so they were grateful for what they got and made the most of it!
Thank you RL Stafford for pointing out a seldom stated fact, that the Royal Navy solved the carrier landing of the Corsair because the Seafire had the same problem. The big RR engine with the cockpit low and far behind in the fuselage. The RN should recieve more credit for finding a solution to this problem.
@@sebastien3351 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
The "curved approach" for carrier landings was not unique to the Corsair. In fact as early as 1936 the "curved approach" was used by the U.S. Navy. There is a diagram of the standard WWII carrier landing procedure for ALL aircraft.
Great video, we have lost most of these wonderful pilots now as time has gone on. Great to hear them talking about their experiences and the footage is superb.
XLNT! Ivery much enjoyed hearing this history in the voices of the men who helped make it. So glad we have this record, as the participants are leaving us all too soon.
My father was a USMC corsair tech, IFF and radar. On both Saipan and Iwo Jima, they were servicing aircraft with Japanese snipers still shooting at them. It could outperform any other aircraft, even the vaunted Mustang. It was all engine, and nothing but. So it was a sort of a wild beast to fly. With the advent of the 4-blade prop, it was only wilder. If you could bring the 8 50's to bear, whatever you were looking at was dead.
Wonderful documentary, very nice to hear these brave men with the vocabulary and command of language equal to their skills of flying. Grammar holds the power of description. A pleasure to my ears!.
That was one of the best videos I've seen on the WWII action and equipment. I love the Corsairs and was lucky enough when in the US Navy to get to work on one.
My Dad said that the recruiting posters of the Corsair sols more guys on becoming naval aviators than any other factor. My dad ended up in Avengers, which need physically strong pilots to fly them. During Korea he flew the AM1 Martin Mauler, which was his favorite aircraft.
Except the part of constantly saying they found a way to use it on carriers but the Americans couldn't. Fact is the Americans had hellcat and didn't need too. The Americans also did the early tests and usage the pointed out the problems. The British, desperate for more powerful planes, worked out the problems out of necessity.
@@theodoresmith5272 Nope. The US Navy rejected it as a carrier fighter due to its _difficulties,_ The British found ways to make it work and the Americans seeing the British success with it only then wanted the Corsair for themselves and the supply to the UK almost dried up. No crowing there, chum, historical fact.
@@Twirlyhead No they didn't it's just another WW2 myth right up with "the ball turret gunners had the deadliest job on the B17", wrong, they had the highest survivability rate. "Sherman tanks were death traps", wrong, Sherman crews had the highest survivability rate of any combat job in the ETO. Just like the myth that the British taught the US Navy how to land their own airplane on a carrier those two myths have also made their way into countless videos and History Channel documentaries and like them it's not true, they're all just typical WW2 myths, and guess where the F4U myth got started, the only people you ever hear say it, and it ain't US Navy pilots, you've never thought it odd that as much as that story gets thrown around you've never once heard from US pilots that went somewhere to have the British teach them how to do it? That's because it's a fairytale, and if I had to guess it started from a smack talker whose the biggest liar to ever get in the cockpit of an aircraft, Eric Brown, I've heard that man tell more lies in interviews than he has truths, a few examples? "I saw Adolph Hitler shake Jessie Owen's hand at the 1936 Olympics, OMG what a tall tale that is, another one? "After the Horton flying wing went to the US they had a test pilot fly it, which is a shame because he wasn't a 'proper' test pilot so they lost the chance to collect valuable data", oh yea, that's a real doozy there, he tried claiming it was top secret and that's why no one knows about it, but of course he does, yea right. Here's the facts, the first 3 US Navy squadrons that were carrier qualified with the F4U were before the British even got their first F4U's, the single biggest issue that caused the Navy to remove them from carrier service was supply chain issues with spare parts, a carrier going out to sea with insufficient spare parts for their plane's isn't the smartest thing to do, between the fact that the US Navy was being flooded with new pilots right out of training and the F6F was indeed easier to land along with the fact that it didn't have spare parts issues why in the world would they want to keep the F4U on carrier's? That'd be about the dumbest thing to do, go out to sea with planes that green pilots stand a better chance of screwing up in that there's a shortage of parts for. Later on when the Navy had a lot of experienced pilots and the Kamikaze's became a big issue along with improvements having been made to the landing gear struts of the F4U the Navy wanted them back on carrier's because of their higher rate of climb so they could be used to launch and climb to altitude to intercept incoming Kamikaze's. The narrative that they were difficult to land on carrier's in the first place is a myth, born out of the same kind of nonsense that started myths about B26's and later on F104's supposedly being "death traps", F4U's were never that difficult to land, the early models needed the valving in the struts reworked so they wouldn't bounce so much, that was something that'd been done by the time later on when they decided to put them back on aircraft carrier's to counter the Kamikaze's, in the meantime the F6F did have an even higher kill to loss ratio of 19 to 1 compared to the F4U's 11 to 1 ratio, so what makes any of you believe that the whole time the US Navy was operating F6F's off of their carrier's there was some kind of supposed urgency to get the F4U's to replace them? Apparently with the 19 to 1 kill ratio of the F6F they weren't worried about it, prior to them deciding to use them against incoming Kamikaze's things were going along just fine. No where in any books on the history of the US Navy will you find anything about the history of US Navy pilots in WW2 going off to some place to have British pilots teach them how to land F4U's on carrier's, no US WW2 pilots have ever talked about being sent to some location where the British taught them how to do it, it's absolutely no where in the history of the United States Navy, so tell me, where exactly did this training go on at? Huh? Because I've searched high and low and the only thing anyone seems to know about it is the British making the claim but even then none of them talk about where this training was done, none of them name US Navy pilots who went to wherever it is that this wonderful British knowledge was passed into them, and another thing I find to be extremely curious is that I've been in an F4U kick these past days and I've watched countless US Navy landings of F4U's on carrier's and not once have I seen a single one of them land with the technique that the RN used landing their's, not a single one. It's nothing more than a bunch of over inflated ego's taking credit for something they shouldn't, for whatever reason the British veterans of WW2 have always tried putting down the US veterans of WW2 and try acting superior for whatever insecure reasons they have for doing it, and old Tall Tale Brown has been at the front of that line since the day after VE-Day, especially after Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier, Mr Fib really started carrying on then with his stories, "Jimmy Doolittle approached me about sorting out some of the problems they were having with B17's", yea right. So go, do the research, tell us where this Royal Navy training facility for US F4U pilots was and who ran it because I've looked high and low and I can't find out anything about it, just a bunch of old men making claims is all I can come up with, like I said I can't even find US carrier landing films of US pilots landing that way, every single landing of an F4U including one's from Korea they approach the carrier straight on from way back just like every other aircraft I've seen landing on US carrier's.
At 21.21 you can see Corsair "115" taking off from HMS Formidable (ship identified by the "X" on the tail). The pilot is quite possibly Lt R H Gray RCNVR, who was awarded the DSC, and then, posthumously, the Victoria Cross. 👍
A fantastic program. Not only did the Royal Navy prove that the F4U was carrier capable, you British also brought us the innovations that allowed jets to operate from the boat as well. I remember many, many years ago building the 1/72 Frog kit and putting RN markings on it.
Very good series. British Corsairs are overlooked , dangerous , yet fabulous!. I saw "real" FAA versions with clipped wing tips for RN service . Great archive footage, men being cool in deadly situations, it got me thinking. As Canadian , I think I would pick a British carrier, over American , if I could time travel to enlist. I salute your valor.
Really interesting hearing the experiences of the pilots. Always been a favourite plane of mind. Very interesting to hear the problems and how they overcame them. Brave, determined people.
Thanks for interviews. Hosted USN Corsair Aces & Marine Aces at our air combat symposiums. They said landing gear bounced too much landing on carrier until Modified. Spoiler added to correct unleavened wing drop on landing. Aces said was a great fighter vs Zero. Kamikaze threat in late 44 urged USN to look for faster fighter than Hellcat so Corsair got put on carriers. Thank you for precious old film collection. Marine Ace , Ken Walsh , 21 victory, lived near me & told me glad he only flew off islands
There is a wonderful book out there all about Royal Navy carrier ops in the Pacific War. I found it at my Legion hall. Unfortunately someone else permanently borrowed it..
Excellent video. Love the pilots stories, great footage. Really liked both about corsair. I had forgotten how huge a planes it is. Good job Brits and Kiwis for taming the beast.
A perfect lesson in the reason angle deck carriers were created. So many of these would have just been bolters and go around for another try but with parked aircraft on the forward deck it's catch a good wire or hit the barrier.
VF-17 was fully qualified to operate Corsairs from USS Bunker Hill late in 1943. Corsairs didn’t operate from carrier decks until April 1944 due to USN Carrier parts and maintenance logistics.
You may want to check this. Before the Navy gave formal approval of the Corsair for carrier deployment in April 1944 the Navy squadron VF(N)-101 underwent intensive deck qualification training, December 1943, before deployment of the radar equipped Corsairs to the aircraft carrier Intrepid (CV-11).
Another fantastic video every time i watch these videos it confirms the US involvment in WW2 it should have been in 1939 and maybe the blitz never happens the humility and bravery of the UK pilots is very inspiring.
Pilot ditches his crippled aircraft into enemy waters, facing a possible fate of capture by the enemy, or attack by sharks. Instead, he is rescued by a friendly submarine, uninjured, given brandy and a meal of turkey, strawberries and ice cream, and taken back to safety. That is one lucky man.
@@davidrees1279 In time of war, which this video dealt with, it happens a lot. I suggest you do a little reading about carrier operations during the Vietnam war. Your comments show that you don't have much knowledge of the dangers of flying off and landing on aircraft carriers. Or the high accident rate. I refer you to this quote by Navy Pilot Allan Bean, who was also Apollo 12 and Skylab 3 astronaut: "I never did anything in space that was more difficult that a night carrier landing."
I remember my dad's WW2 training buddy saying: "Best fighter of the war", of the Corsair, as my dad fought back his indignation at the comment made in my bedroom as as a teenager with models of both aircraft on display, with the pair of them inspecting. Dad flew the Seafire XV in 802 Sqn. I remain, to this day, conflicted over the comment! I think his name was Roy Brown (Scottish). This would have been about 1976.
It seems fitting that it was British tinkering, in the same league as Hobart's funnies and the installation of the seventeen-pounder in the Sherman Firefly, that brought this aircraft to its full potential. Also, thanks to the commenters who filled in the gaps on the Corsair's early deployment on US carriers in 1944 and the reasons behind the scheduling of the replacement of the Hellcat with the Corsair.
Good to see films and commentary from our British allies on how they operated Corsairs. Would love to hear about their experiences with other US Navy aircraft
My dad was on the Ark Royal in the sixties. He told me about a gannet that had engine failure just after going down the catapult and went into the sea. The pilot told the navigator to not get out even as the aeroplane sank. The aeroplane sank the Ark Royal went right past the aeroplane. When the ship had gone they both got out to the and survived. The pilot got a commendation. To have left the aircraft was certain death as the propellers would have sucked the aircrew in. You have to hand it to the guy's balls of steel.
Testicles are not, nor ever were incompressible. Valour is a mystery to me. Dr John. I wonder how many english speakers of Standard English understand split infinitives, a major concern in the early 60s. (To not get out, versus not to get out). Painfully pedantic perhaps but now normal. Don't give me that stuff about language changing.
My father trained on the F4U. He said that it was a very scary experience to begin with. The corsair was not tolerant of fools or inattention to detail or delayed action in the cockpit. It is said that the F4U killed more pilots in training that any other front line fighter. It was thusly and probably accurately known as the "ensign eliminator" and "the Widowmaker"
REALLY extraordinarily good content...your passion for the subject shows. Perfectionism is a good thing sometimes, don’t let anyone tell you different. (Love the Corsairs on the transfer barges btw...)
Thanks. It's both an experiment and an outlet. And I wince when I watch them again, seeing all the stupid errors that slip through (usually generated by fixing other errors at the last moment).
On 13 February 1943, the Vought F4U Corsair flew its first operational mission when Guadalcanal-based Marine Fighter Squadron VMF-124 F4U-1 Corsairs escorted U. S. Army Air Corps B-24 Liberator bombers on a raid against Kahili Airfield on Bougainville. The Marines asserted air dominance flying Corsairs from primitive forward land bases throughout the Pacific. The SeeBees gained quite a reputation for very quickly building airstrips on newly won and even still contested islands. This was important because the US Army Air Corps operated medium and heavy bombers from longer more developed airstrips. The Corsair could fly with either a centerline drop tank or two wing mounted drop tanks.
@Hoa Tattis according to the Imperial War Museum, UK, the Hurricane was restricted from front line combat fighter duty by May of 1942 and was replaced by the Spitfire. Seems like the Russians didn’t much care for it either.
Love the Bend Wing Bird. Bless the Royal Navy Aviators who proved the Corsairs could be operated off of carriers. Royal Navy really was an innovator when it came to carrier ops.
Aye, but necessity is also the mother of invention. US Navy was a bit spoiled in having two really good planes to choose from so they went with the one that seemed to pose fewer problems and had less of a learning curve. I think the Royal Navy, though, had more of an incentive to try to make the Corsair work, I'm thankful that they did and that their efforts went a long way to proving the Corsair's worth.
@@noroardanto the fleet air arm worked out the curved landing approach, the raised seat for better visibility and modified oleos to prevent bounce on landing. The Royal Navy were the only ones to use Corairs and Hellcats in northern Europe
The British had to shorten the wingtips to fit the Corsair in the hangars, this cured by accident the plane floating down the deck due to too much lift from the wings. The suspension Oleo legs bounce was cured by lowering its pressure. A simple modification to the leading edge of one wing made both wings stall evenly, rather than one wing stall first and drop a wing flipping the aircraft. A curved landing approach looking through the kink in the wing enabled sight to deck. Later on the US fleet had more and more carriers and needed more aircraft and started using Corsairs on them again.
Just looking at the position of the canopy in the Corsair, It is no wonder that it would be hard to land the aircraft safely onto the carrier. These men from the Fleet Air Arm have the balls of steel to land this thing into the carrier, knowing that doing so is close to impossible, but they still did it.
The RN developed a curved landing approach onto the deck, as mentioned in the Video, which made it quite possible to land successfully. You need balls to land on a Carrier anyway.
@@anthonywilson4873 NO it is not true. Several U.S. Navy squadrons were deck qualified before the Brits had a Corsair. Also the "curved approach" is NOT unique to the Corsair. 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 Also read "F4U Corsair at War" by Abrams. There is a chapter in which Royal Navy Corsair pilot Hanson describes in detail the Corsair landing issues December 1943 and January 1944. Also read "Carrier Pilot" by Hanson. If you are really into aircraft carrier history Boone Guyton was flying the Boeing F4B "curved approach" in 1936 on the carrier deck Lexington in 1936. Same issue, i.e. forward visibility.
"Military and naval aviation in America has been developed to the full. What a relief that has been to the Australians and New Zealanders. The United States Naval Air Service has provided us with many types of naval machines that we lack." below 820 Hansard FLEET AIR ARM HL Deb 27 January 1943 on line
When the Nazi barbarians are at the gates, long-term thinking goes out the window in favor of maximum immediate bang for buck. The Fleet Air Arm was the primary victim of the 1940 Battle of Britain emergency order to suspend all development on engines and aircraft other than the best RAF types. The consequences of this decision were severe, however. HMS Formidable was bombed in 1941 because there were not enough spares to get all her fighters operational. And the "stop gap" Fulmar had to remain in operation a year longer than planned, with only the Sea Hurricane and Wildcat available to replace it.
@@ArmouredCarriers For your consideration. "There is a controversy between those who say that the Admiralty did not get what it wanted for the Fleet Air Arm and those who say that the Admiralty was not very clever at explaining what exactly it 796 was that it wanted. I noticed quite recently that Air Marshal Dowding has gone on record as saying that the Admiralty got precisely the types which it specified and demanded. Whatever may be the rights and wrongs of this controversy there is certainly no doubt whatever about it that war found the Fleet Air Arm equipped with extremely bad aircraft. But there is one other thing I think which should be said in fairness. The Admiralty regained control of the Fleet Air Arm in 1937, rather less, I think, than two years before war broke out, and when war did come it found the Admiralty struggling with the enormous task of constituting the Fleet Air Arm, and those difficulties were very great indeed. One has only to consider the difficulties about personnel-the expansion of personnel from 3,000 to 10,000 which the Admiralty was struggling with. We see the results of that to-day when in those great operations in the Malta Convoy 90 per cent. of the pilots belonged to the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. They were also caught with a very difficult job about maintenance. Maintenance is all-important to the Fleet Air Arm because a Fleet Air Arm pilot cannot do a crash landing in a convenient field. The Admiralty had to borrow some 1,500 to 1,600 maintenance ratings from the Royal Air Force. No one would blame the Royal Air Force for not wishing to lend its best and brightest in the way of personnel. The Fleet Air Arm has always had a great struggle in that connexion, and maintenance has been a very great problem." Hansard FLEET AIR ARM. HL Deb 27 January 1943 vol 125 cc794-829 page
Oh, absolutely. All navies struggled to bridge the pre-radar gap when it came to over-water navigation. The RN wanted observers for that purpose. The difference is that these challenges remained part of the equation longer due to the Battle of Britain shut-down. The Firefly is a perfect example of this. It was a two-seater designed for operations over the North Atlantic when the USN and IJN were going for single-seaters for the Pacific (gambling at the risk of losing pilots every time they flew over the horizon). But The Firefly was delivered two years late becaues of the shut-down, by which time radar guidance had solved the navigation problem. But a fully navalised Seafire (proposed in 1939) was cancelled by the Battle of Britain. And the RAF didnt release enough Spitfire production to modify for naval operations (Seafire) before 1943. Thus the "capabilty gap" before the Sea Fury and Sea Hornet came online in 1946. It's a fascinating subject. I recomment "Fighters Over the Fleet" and "American & British Aircraft Carrier Development" as excellent examinations of the complexity behind this scenario. It's not the simple picture the interservice blame-game depicts it to be. @@nickdanger3802
7:59 Talking about the Spitfire's stalling characteristics: "It was an awful job to make it stall...it would just sink." The Spitfire's wing stalled from the root outwards, so the pilot had full aileron control until the stall was fully developed.
I was at the Midway carrier museum in San Diego some 10 or so years ago and 2 very old WW II pilots; one a Corsair pilot, the other a Hellcat pilot; were each extolling the advantages of their plane. I should have videoed it...
@@busterdee8228 I bet! Fabulous u.s. imperialism, (Banana Wars ) must have killed many civilians. Compare and contrast with the Mexican-American war, Spanish-American war, Grenada, Panama, not to mention Korea and Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan etc etc. great stories nae doot for the victorious survivors.
Great video and great stories....however, the main reason the USN initally chose the Hellcat over the Corsair was one of logistics. Yes the Corsair had its problems but to have two fighters on a carrier with all their spare parts would have been a logistical nightmare. The Hellcat was not giving any serious problems, the navy picked the Hellcat, in 1943 that was probably the correct choice. The US Marines benefited greatly from that decision.
Yes, and starting in February of 1943 on Henderson Field Guadalcanal the US Marines used the Corsair to assert air dominance from forward bases throughout the Pacific. On 13 February 1943, the Vought F4U Corsair flew its first operational mission when Guadalcanal-based Marine Fighter Squadron VMF-124 F4U-1 Corsairs escorted U. S. Army Air Corps B-24 Liberator bombers on a raid against Kahili Airfield on Bougainville.
The accident rate of the F4U was horrendous...and the performance increment over the F6F didn’t matter much in the latter half of the Pacific war. The winning aircraft wasn’t necessarily the highest performance but the one which an average fighter pilot could extract the maximum he was capable of....which is a different thing.
@@jamesanderton344 - Yes, you’re right about the accident rate (mostly early). But the Corsair was also a phenomenal fighter-bomber that in the hands of the Marine Corps was the plane that started US Combat Close Air Support Doctrine. It was the Corsair that was the piston aircraft the FAA, the USN, and the USMC kept after WW2, and it was the Corsair that was invaluable to the Allies in Korea and the French in Indochina and Algeria.
@@jamesanderton344 As Leroy Grumman said...I paraphrase ...he wanted an aircraft built by shoe sale clerks, maintained by shoe sale clerks and flown by....yes..shoe sale clerks...the F6F Hellcat.
@@petersouthernboy6327 Post war, a strong case can be made that the Douglas Skyraider was the logical choice as a piston carrier based attack aircraft....by Korea, a Corsair was useless as a fighter and was outclassed by the AD in the attack role, but with similar maintenance and logistics...I’d love to dig deeper into that procurement....Vought aircraft had a relatively poor history in USN service until the Crusader.....I’d be tempted to believe that F4U procurement had political factors involved....
The RN tamed the Corsair and taught the USN how to use it on a carrier. Adjusting the oleos to fix the bouncing and adopting a wide, looping approach to land allowing the pilot to see the deck and the LSO right until the last minute - made the F4U a carrier darling. Almost ;)
Read "F4U Corsair at War"by Abrams. Go to the chapter written by Norman Hanson Royal Navy Corsair pilot. In that chapter Hanson makes it clear the RN had not perfected the Corsair landing procedure, December 1943. Further in the book "Whistling Death" by Boone Guyton (Chance Vought PRIMARY test pilot) the U.S. Navy was being taught the curved carrier approach long before the RN had the Corsair.
Eric Brown, was the one who tamed the Corsair, for the Fleet Air Arm. Brilliant flyer, who carried out 2,400+ deck landings that has never been surpassed. A really great book to read on the Corsair with the British Pacific Fleet, is "Carrier Pilot" by Norman Hanson.
Having attended Edinburgh University myself in the late 60s, and learnt about this bloke, mortified I never heard him speak; although he'd attended Loretto (school), very posh, and somewhat right-wing. Imagine owning an MG Magnette in 1939. Like Douglas Bader, not terribly compassionate I suspect. Brave to the point of recklessness; must have been hard for his wife and any children.
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
@@johnconlon9652 Post war in the Fleet Air arm it was also very hard on the families. I knew a WW2 -1952 pilot who flew the Corsair during the war but with all the experimenting post 1945, according to his wife, the dreaded senior officer plus padre would visit officers married quarters (houses) at least once a week.
@@maxschell8823 It wasn't 'a curved approach' but a more technical curved approach devised by the FAA that made the landings safer. The FAA had been using technical curved approaches adapted for different types of long nosed, in-line engined aircraft including the Seafire, for some years before.
"Whether it lies at the Admiralty or at the Ministry of Aircraft Production, or 797 whether it lies with the Minister of Defence or the War Cabinet, these are things which require a great deal of knowledge and information before one could decide; but the responsibility must lie somewhere for the fact that in the fourth year of war the Fleet Air Arm is still so ill-equipped as to be robbing this country of the opportunity of great and victorious strokes at sea while at the same time inflicting very unnecessary perils upon the pilots." Hansard FLEET AIR ARM. HL Deb 27 January 1943 page
Currently sick with CFS/ME/SEID- it can make it difficult to form new memories. I can’t remember what we ate for dinner (tea-UK) a couple of hours ago even though I cooked it. Yet, I haven’t used, or even thought of, the term ‘tail flash’ in 40 years.
For some reason, it made me so proud to hear pilots from the UK singing the praise of the Corsairs! I knew it was them that taught the US pilots how to land them on a deck. I did not know that the US no longer provided the Corsairs to the UK after the US Navy started using them. Fantastic stories and footage!!
@@maxschell8823 Well it seems illustrious bodies like the Smithsonian and even the US Navy disagree with your comment. Anyway can you provide quotes and sources? Especially "Carrier Pilot" by Hanson. Page numbers will do as I have the book.
@@maxschell8823 Well well well. No page number for the book I have. I wonder why? Not everyone does Facebook and I don't precisely because of the utter crap and lies that are passed off as 'facts' on there. You clearly have an agenda and obviously have found some sources you can manipulate to suit that agenda. Thats cool and you are free to do so. But don't try and fabricate your own facts. When the US Navy itself supports the fact that it was the Royal Navy pilots who developed the landing approach for the Corsair then your agenda is dead in the water. Excuse the pun. You can be sure if there was any chance of crediting Americans then they would do it. But we shouldn't be surprised the Royal Navy cracked this problem as it built the first carrier on 1918 and delivered every major carrier development since. And in 1941 it had more carriers than the US Navy and was the largest Navy in the world until 1944.
@@1chish 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.
@@1chish Interested in history for decades, I think of Henry Ford's comment, history being "bunk". Clearly, sic, he might have been referring to the victors writing it, in which case he was right. "Illustrious" bodies I no longer trust, even textbooks. Academia, don't you hate it. You might put that in your pipe, if you have one. Aged Irishman.
Fascinating that Brits developed the armoured flight deck, impervious to kamikaze attacks, the angled approach, which allows the Corsair to become a much safer aircraft to land on a carrier deck and finally the angled deck. All developments which of course the US adopted sooner or later.
Bob Collins states @3:20 that the "Americans gave them up because they were too fast at landing" and John Maybank @12:50 that the Oleo legs were badly adjusted and in addition the Corsair has been stated post-war to be unsuitable for carriers, but this is untrue. US Navy documents at the time reveal that the Corsairs were only relegated to islands initially because of Vought's inability to produce as many as the Navy needed and it was decided to concentrate them and the Hellcats for supply chain efficiency. Vought's production limitations are why Brewster and Goodyear were issues contracts for Corsairs as well - the US Navy clearly liked and wanted the Corsair. The Oleo strut issue John Maybank mentioned was true on the shakedown cruise, but Vought technicians had a design fix ready by the time they returned to shore.
Correct. The narrations and not always accurate. There are a number of reliable sources for accurate information e.g. "Whistling Death" by Boone Guyton, "Jolly Rogers" by Blackburn etc.
So! Are you saying that it was not the FAAs experience with the 'oleo bounce' that caused the changes? "The Oleo strut issue John Maybank mentioned was true on the shakedown cruise, but Vought technicians had a design fix ready by the time they returned to shore" And that... "US Navy documents at the time reveal that the Corsairs were only relegated to islands initially because of Vought's inability to produce as many as the Navy needed" was the only reason why the FAA were using the Corsair (carrier based) offensively 7 months before the USN? It's OK researching what you want to find. But ignoring other reasons and context is another.
Something like 118 US Marine Corps pilots made Ace during WW2 - the vast majority of them flying the Corsair. All of the forward bases in the Pacific island hopping campaign had Marine Corsairs. By 1945, Navy and Marine fighter pilots had become quite good with bombs and rockets, and in 1945 about 3/4ths of the carrier Air groups were fighters due to the Kamikaze situation. During Operation Ten Go on April 7, 1945, at 13:30 a USN fighter pilot in a Corsair put a 1,000 pound AP bomb through the port bow of Yamato
@@Gfdsa40 Marine pilots operated from Carriers in the last stages of the Pacific Campaign. Mostly they operated from Escort carriers in support of amphibious forces on the ground. They provided close air support, carrier air patrols and anti-Kamikaze work as the Corsair was faster and better able to intercept Kamikaze's than the F6F. They also operated from the captured Islands as well. The Marine Corp was one of the leading developers of close air support before and during World War II and were still using Corsairs in the Korean War for this mission.
@@Gfdsa40 Two USN fighter squadrons were qualified to operate Corsairs from carriers in 1943, including VF-17 on USS Bunker Hill. The *REAL* reason that US carriers didn’t start seeing Corsairs until April 1944 was logistics - the USN simply didn’t want to complicate parts and support since Hellcats were already on carriers and the Marines were making very good use of the Corsairs. As more new Essex Class fleet carriers appeared, Navy and Marine Corsair squadrons deployed on carriers. In 1945, as the kamikaze situation developed and the US found itself on Japan’s doorstep - the aircraft mix changed to 75% fighters and then the Corsair really started to become prominent on US fleet carriers.
@@Squad23jta USN Escort Carriers like the Casablanca Class operated the FM2 “Wilder Wildcat” because of size and space constraints. It was actually a pretty good fighter. The FM2 had a bigger engine (1350hp), larger vertical tail surface, and larger fuel tanks.
@@Gfdsa40 The US Navy gave up on the Corsair as a carrier fighter because it was difficult to land on the deck, they had the Grumman Hellcat coming along anyway. They declared it their shore based fighter bomber and the Marines ended up with it the first serious pushback against the Japanese air power in the Soloman Islands. The British kept at it and developed the curving approach landing as shown in this video. The American navy began flying the Corsair off the carriers in 1944 using the British landing method along with the Hellcats, they called them the terrible twosome.
The commentary in its partner video includes lines like how a class of trainee pilots were grumbling about having to fly such a dangerous aicraft - right up to the point when the Corsairs were delivered by women Air Transport Auxiliary pilots ...
Did you see all the splinters flying when an American Corsair tipped over and started to chew up the deck. And it’s like no two RN Corsairs had the same roundels or tail flash.
@Hoa Tattis I have read up yet how to tell between different Commonwealth forces’ insignia in the Pacific theatre. Did you ever see the picture of a crashed Spitfire/Seafire in USMC colours? The Pacific was crazy with different allied colour schemes.
It's amazing how many different variations there are in the FAA markings you see over the entire video. Small white circle, big white circle, bars, no bars - at 22:05 there's even one with the central red circle (probably European/Mediterranean operations rather than the Pacific).
Yeah. The standard roundel was used off Norway. But the red "meatball" was a problem in the Indian Ocean. So an interim modification was a hasty repaint of the original roundel - removing the red and yellow and leaving the blue circle with a white centre. By the time the fleet arrived in the Pacific a new design was settled on - a blue-white roundel with US-style "bars".
@@johnklatt3522 Yeah, those were the early ones they used pre-war (I think they gone by Midway, or painted over). The bars were relatively late war (late 1944?) and were the result of some testing they did - there's a photo at the US Airforce Museum that shows a line of four fighters painted with different fuselage markings (including German ones) and at a distance the the US insignia with the bars was the easiest to distinguish from other markings.
I'll bet the Marines loved calling it the "Ensign Eliminator" while they were flying the meanest machine over the South Pacific. In your face, boat boys!
I enjoyed it. What I noticed was that the Brits, like Aussies, were shirtless on the flight line. That never happens on a US ship/base. My RAAF Sqn went to Hawaii for an antisub exercise. On landing our groundies went to service the birds in shorts only. The Yank CO was apoplectic, strictly verboten.
As a child in my motherland, mes amis, I read the memoirs of a chap who was a combat pilote of one of these in WWII. He claimed that the Flight Manual stated that the glide-characteristics were SO poor, that if the engine stopped, you should bail-out (if high enough) ... OR 'Whistle A Happy Tune and Kiss Your Ass Goodbye '! ... because a 'dead-stick’ landing was very iffy.
08:57 "The propellor was thirteen foot from top to bottom. The biggest propellor ever, in a fighter aircraft." The Typhoon and Tempest had 14-feet-diameter propellors.
The Corsair had a 14 foot prop. So yes; the Fleet Air Arm pilot made a wee mistake. But he was correct in that the prop was the biggest fitted to a WW 2 fighter and most particularly a carrier fighter. It just so happens that the Typhoon also had a 14 foot prop; not so sure about the Tempest. In any event, in my limited experience of air crew veterans; they were far more interested in trying to survive being shot at, than memorizing the technical details of this or that bit of equipment.
@@haroldgodwinson832 The three-blade propellor on the Corsair was 13 feet four inches. The Typhoon and Tempest had 14-feet-diameter propellors, both three and four-blade. It's a good thing that we later generations are able to be precise about minor details that the guys who actually flew the aircraft while being shot at might not remember accurately...
Looks Great! Next time use AI sound to normalize the volumes or do it the old fashion way - add 3-4 tracks of the same low sound to bring it to normal levels! Look forward to more work with better sound.
Granddad flew corsairs and taught night time navigation during Korea. He had a few tails of losing men during training flights from underestimating the Corsair.
This was absolutely masterful. I indirectly owe a lot to the Corsair: my uncle was a Corsair crew chief in the USMC during WW2 and while he didn’t talk much about the war, he loved that I was interested and told me all about the F4U; he had nothing but admiration for the aircraft. That started my interest in aviation, and ultimately began my career first as a USAF pilot, and now as an airline pilot.
Thanks for this outstanding documentary, with such insightful interviews of very brave men!
Well ...
First time I saw this acft. was in " John Hazard " comic stripe, I was struck by those bent wings, oil coolers and canopy, probably I was 11 or 12 years old.
I went to the Air Force of Chile Officers Academy, 40 hrs. T 34 Mentor, then to Webb AFB . Texas.
Then A - 37 B Dragonfly .
Just retired from Qatar Airways. ( B 777 ).
Also flew the DH Vampire .
Cheers!
Re
My dad was an Aviation Machinist's Mate and plane captain, 1941 - 1945. That must be about the same as a USMC crew chief. The Corsair was his favorite plane, and he worked on all the different carrier aircraft. I grew up loving the F4U.
Excellent video! When I was stationed with the USAF in the UK in the 1990's, I had a couple Spitfire/Seafire pilots sign a drawing I did. I asked the FAA pilots which plane they liked better, the Seafire or the Corsair. Being a yank, they looked at me with a derisive smile knowing what I was up to. They had to give it to the Corsair. I asked them about the strut issue and they got a kick out of me knowing about it. I thank my lucky starts that I had the honor to meet these gentlemen. They are gone, but not forgotten.
My grandfather flew Corsairs off the Illustrious including the Operation Meridian strikes. I just received his flight log as a 40th birthday present and have started to research his wartime experience.
dude that's badass! I'm sure he flew some insane sorties. Grateful for his service
@@DistantThunder89 yeah, flew top cover on one mission and RAMROD airfield strafing on Sabang and Palembang. He said sitting on deck ready to go was absolutely terrifying. After the raids, friendly fire from another ship hit Illustrious and took put him out of action for a few months and he didn't see any further action during the war. He was cited as being "above the average" at the time of the injury and he remained a pilot instructor for 5 years after the war.
That is awesome! I was just thinking about my dad's flight logs today. He flew the F4 Phantom in Vietnam. I'd love to see those.
How lucky!
wwow...
An Exceptional Documentary about an Extraordinary Warplane told by the Incredibly Courageous Pilots who flew them. TH-cam does not get better than this. Thank you Armoured Carriers for preserving the priceless piece of history.
High praise indeed for my amateur effort. Thankyou.
@@ArmouredCarriers Amateur effort? You are too modest. Thumb's up and well done.
I watched the first video about the Corsair and subbed after 10 min.
Loved hearing these British WW2 vets talk about their experiences with the Corsair. These tough men never seem to be very self impressed. This week I had the privilege of hearing a veteran of the siege of Khe Sanh talk a bit about his unit’s 77 days there and the terror he felt. I wound up at that 12 step meeting he spoke at randomly after missing my regular 7am meeting. He had not told his story in 10 years and I rarely attend that meeting. Saw him again the next day somewhere else and he had just, that morning, heard from another guy who had been there at Khe Sanh . The two had not spoken in 50 years and they had just spoken after he’d told his story for the first time in a decade. Absolutely amazing. Sat on my hands that next day to make sure I didn’t ask him for more of the story, the Viet Nam portion of his story was really only incidental to what he was sharing, as odd as that sounds. Writing this in an anonymous forum is really the only way I can tell this. Crazy.
An Irishman born in England (sic- the diaspora), at boarding school in the 50s and 60s, the decent english tend to be diffident, which I like. Hubristic, bombastic, arrogant yanks do not impress me.
I appreciate this comment.
Slante.
☘
Fascinating and absorbing film. My father served aboard HMS Glory with 1831 NAS, Corsairs, in the Pacific Fleet in 1945 as an Engineering rating. He was present on deck for the occasion of the Japanese Surrender off Rabaul , 6th September 1945. He remained in the RN and retired as a Lt Cdr in the 1970's after a full career in the Fleet Air Arm.
5:02-5-10, beautiful approach, nice and smooth and slow. Then stall, drop the aircraft, bounce and then, beautiful landing. It doesn't get any better in the one-of-a-kind Corsair air frame. No pilot in the world can tell me any more than I already know.. It's a forgotten art.
Retired US NAVY HERE. EVEN I know that landing patterns were developed by the brits and still used to this day because of the corsair. Thank you!
Lucky for us like our U.S.M.C., they did not have a true independent Naval fighter budget so they were grateful for what they got and made the most of it!
Thank you RL Stafford for pointing out a seldom stated fact, that the Royal Navy solved the carrier landing of the Corsair because the Seafire had the same problem. The big RR engine with the cockpit low and far behind in the fuselage. The RN should recieve more credit for finding a solution to this problem.
@@sebastien3351 The steam catapult and angled landing deck were also British inventions.
@@sebastien3351 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
The "curved approach" for carrier landings was not unique to the Corsair. In fact as early as 1936 the "curved approach" was used by the U.S. Navy. There is a diagram of the standard WWII carrier landing procedure for ALL aircraft.
Great video, we have lost most of these wonderful pilots now as time has gone on. Great to hear them talking about their experiences and the footage is superb.
XLNT! Ivery much enjoyed hearing this history in the voices of the men who helped make it. So glad we have this record, as the participants are leaving us all too soon.
My father was a USMC corsair tech, IFF and radar. On both Saipan and Iwo Jima, they were servicing aircraft with Japanese snipers still shooting at them. It could outperform any other aircraft, even the vaunted Mustang. It was all engine, and nothing but. So it was a sort of a wild beast to fly. With the advent of the 4-blade prop, it was only wilder. If you could bring the 8 50's to bear, whatever you were looking at was dead.
Wonderful documentary, very nice to hear these brave men with the vocabulary and command of language equal to their skills of flying. Grammar holds the power of description. A pleasure to my ears!.
That was one of the best videos I've seen on the WWII action and equipment. I love the Corsairs and was lucky enough when in the US Navy to get to work on one.
My Dad said that the recruiting posters of the Corsair sols more guys on becoming naval aviators than any other factor.
My dad ended up in Avengers, which need physically strong pilots to fly them. During Korea he flew the AM1 Martin Mauler, which was his favorite aircraft.
I love how gentle and without ego these British pilots were they never blow their own trumpet
An Irishman born in England, 1949, boarding school (cheap), I met so many diffident Brits. Lovely blokes mostly.
Except the part of constantly saying they found a way to use it on carriers but the Americans couldn't. Fact is the Americans had hellcat and didn't need too. The Americans also did the early tests and usage the pointed out the problems. The British, desperate for more powerful planes, worked out the problems out of necessity.
@@theodoresmith5272 Nope. The US Navy rejected it as a carrier fighter due to its _difficulties,_ The British found ways to make it work and the Americans seeing the British success with it only then wanted the Corsair for themselves and the supply to the UK almost dried up. No crowing there, chum, historical fact.
@@Twirlyhead
No they didn't it's just another WW2 myth right up with "the ball turret gunners had the deadliest job on the B17", wrong, they had the highest survivability rate.
"Sherman tanks were death traps", wrong, Sherman crews had the highest survivability rate of any combat job in the ETO.
Just like the myth that the British taught the US Navy how to land their own airplane on a carrier those two myths have also made their way into countless videos and History Channel documentaries and like them it's not true, they're all just typical WW2 myths, and guess where the F4U myth got started, the only people you ever hear say it, and it ain't US Navy pilots, you've never thought it odd that as much as that story gets thrown around you've never once heard from US pilots that went somewhere to have the British teach them how to do it? That's because it's a fairytale, and if I had to guess it started from a smack talker whose the biggest liar to ever get in the cockpit of an aircraft, Eric Brown, I've heard that man tell more lies in interviews than he has truths, a few examples? "I saw Adolph Hitler shake Jessie Owen's hand at the 1936 Olympics, OMG what a tall tale that is, another one? "After the Horton flying wing went to the US they had a test pilot fly it, which is a shame because he wasn't a 'proper' test pilot so they lost the chance to collect valuable data", oh yea, that's a real doozy there, he tried claiming it was top secret and that's why no one knows about it, but of course he does, yea right.
Here's the facts, the first 3 US Navy squadrons that were carrier qualified with the F4U were before the British even got their first F4U's, the single biggest issue that caused the Navy to remove them from carrier service was supply chain issues with spare parts, a carrier going out to sea with insufficient spare parts for their plane's isn't the smartest thing to do, between the fact that the US Navy was being flooded with new pilots right out of training and the F6F was indeed easier to land along with the fact that it didn't have spare parts issues why in the world would they want to keep the F4U on carrier's? That'd be about the dumbest thing to do, go out to sea with planes that green pilots stand a better chance of screwing up in that there's a shortage of parts for.
Later on when the Navy had a lot of experienced pilots and the Kamikaze's became a big issue along with improvements having been made to the landing gear struts of the F4U the Navy wanted them back on carrier's because of their higher rate of climb so they could be used to launch and climb to altitude to intercept incoming Kamikaze's.
The narrative that they were difficult to land on carrier's in the first place is a myth, born out of the same kind of nonsense that started myths about B26's and later on F104's supposedly being "death traps", F4U's were never that difficult to land, the early models needed the valving in the struts reworked so they wouldn't bounce so much, that was something that'd been done by the time later on when they decided to put them back on aircraft carrier's to counter the Kamikaze's, in the meantime the F6F did have an even higher kill to loss ratio of 19 to 1 compared to the F4U's 11 to 1 ratio, so what makes any of you believe that the whole time the US Navy was operating F6F's off of their carrier's there was some kind of supposed urgency to get the F4U's to replace them? Apparently with the 19 to 1 kill ratio of the F6F they weren't worried about it, prior to them deciding to use them against incoming Kamikaze's things were going along just fine.
No where in any books on the history of the US Navy will you find anything about the history of US Navy pilots in WW2 going off to some place to have British pilots teach them how to land F4U's on carrier's, no US WW2 pilots have ever talked about being sent to some location where the British taught them how to do it, it's absolutely no where in the history of the United States Navy, so tell me, where exactly did this training go on at? Huh? Because I've searched high and low and the only thing anyone seems to know about it is the British making the claim but even then none of them talk about where this training was done, none of them name US Navy pilots who went to wherever it is that this wonderful British knowledge was passed into them, and another thing I find to be extremely curious is that I've been in an F4U kick these past days and I've watched countless US Navy landings of F4U's on carrier's and not once have I seen a single one of them land with the technique that the RN used landing their's, not a single one.
It's nothing more than a bunch of over inflated ego's taking credit for something they shouldn't, for whatever reason the British veterans of WW2 have always tried putting down the US veterans of WW2 and try acting superior for whatever insecure reasons they have for doing it, and old Tall Tale Brown has been at the front of that line since the day after VE-Day, especially after Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier, Mr Fib really started carrying on then with his stories, "Jimmy Doolittle approached me about sorting out some of the problems they were having with B17's", yea right.
So go, do the research, tell us where this Royal Navy training facility for US F4U pilots was and who ran it because I've looked high and low and I can't find out anything about it, just a bunch of old men making claims is all I can come up with, like I said I can't even find US carrier landing films of US pilots landing that way, every single landing of an F4U including one's from Korea they approach the carrier straight on from way back just like every other aircraft I've seen landing on US carrier's.
@dukecraig2402 so your calling Eric Winkle Brown a lier? Hmmmmm.
At 21.21 you can see Corsair "115" taking off from HMS Formidable (ship identified by the "X" on the tail). The pilot is quite possibly Lt R H Gray RCNVR, who was awarded the DSC, and then, posthumously, the Victoria Cross. 👍
These collections of first hand interviews are outstanding. Kudos to the channel owner.
A fantastic program. Not only did the Royal Navy prove that the F4U was carrier capable, you British also brought us the innovations that allowed jets to operate from the boat as well.
I remember many, many years ago building the 1/72 Frog kit and putting RN markings on it.
Frog?
@@jaybee9269 Frog kits: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frog_(models)
“You British….”?
Great film,,, the pilots, and footage of the carrier ops.
I'm in awe. I never got past just driving it on the mains on spacious runways.
Very good series. British Corsairs are overlooked , dangerous , yet fabulous!. I saw "real" FAA versions with clipped wing tips for RN service . Great archive footage, men being cool in deadly situations, it got me thinking. As Canadian , I think I would pick a British carrier, over American , if I could time travel to enlist. I salute your valor.
Thank you. Fantastic insight into the Navy Corsair, our lads could certainly handle her. Lest we Forget
Canada’s last (or 2nd) last VC was awarded (posthumously) to a FAA Corsair pilot.
Really interesting hearing the experiences of the pilots. Always been a favourite plane of mind. Very interesting to hear the problems and how they overcame them. Brave, determined people.
These are dop docs bro, One of the best i found lately with commentry of the real soldiers.....Proper little war doc channel kev...
Thanks for interviews. Hosted USN Corsair Aces & Marine Aces at our air combat symposiums. They said landing gear bounced too much landing on carrier until Modified. Spoiler added to correct unleavened wing drop on landing. Aces said was a great fighter vs Zero. Kamikaze threat in late 44 urged USN to look for faster fighter than Hellcat so Corsair got put on carriers. Thank you for precious old film collection. Marine Ace , Ken Walsh , 21 victory, lived near me & told me glad he only flew off islands
These videos about the British Pacific Fleet are fascinating.
There is a wonderful book out there all about Royal Navy carrier ops in the Pacific War. I found it at my Legion hall. Unfortunately someone else permanently borrowed it..
@@alantoon5708 "Carrier Pilot" by Norman Hanson. Hanson was a Royal Navy Corsair pilot. Great read.
@@alantoon5708 Yes read"Carrier Pilot" by Norman Hanson. Hanson was a Royal Navy Corsair pilot.
@@alantoon5708 Yes, read "Carrier Pilot" by Norman Hanson. Hanson was a Royal Navy Corsair pilot.
Excellent video. Love the pilots stories, great footage. Really liked both about corsair. I had forgotten how huge a planes it is. Good job Brits and Kiwis for taming the beast.
These are so nicely put together. Great job on the web site, too!
A perfect lesson in the reason angle deck carriers were created. So many of these would have just been bolters and go around for another try but with parked aircraft on the forward deck it's catch a good wire or hit the barrier.
VF-17 was fully qualified to operate Corsairs from USS Bunker Hill late in 1943. Corsairs didn’t operate from carrier decks until April 1944 due to USN Carrier parts and maintenance logistics.
Tommy Blackburn, who was the skipper of VF-17 described this in his book. His squadron was very disappointed when they deployed as a land based unit.
You may want to check this. Before the Navy gave formal approval of the Corsair for carrier deployment in April 1944 the Navy squadron VF(N)-101 underwent intensive deck qualification training, December 1943, before deployment of the radar equipped Corsairs to the aircraft carrier Intrepid (CV-11).
Such a excellent series! Thanks, messmate.
Another fantastic video every time i watch these videos it confirms the US involvment in WW2 it should have been in 1939 and maybe the blitz never happens the humility and bravery of the UK pilots is very inspiring.
Pilot ditches his crippled aircraft into enemy waters, facing a possible fate of capture by the enemy, or attack by sharks. Instead, he is rescued by a friendly submarine, uninjured, given brandy and a meal of turkey, strawberries and ice cream, and taken back to safety. That is one lucky man.
This is absolutely incredible to hear these men. Thank you
They are amazing. That's why I make these videos - so I can hear their voices myself and share them.
Incredible Footage/Commentary!
Such an accident rate is unimaginable today. It goes to show just how dangerous Carrier Operations were in those times.
The accident rate today is still high - bigger, heavier and faster aircraft have something to do with it.
@@MarsFKA. How often do today's Fast Jets get thrown overboard after an accident?
@@davidrees1279 In time of war, which this video dealt with, it happens a lot. I suggest you do a little reading about carrier operations during the Vietnam war.
Your comments show that you don't have much knowledge of the dangers of flying off and landing on aircraft carriers. Or the high accident rate.
I refer you to this quote by Navy Pilot Allan Bean, who was also Apollo 12 and Skylab 3 astronaut: "I never did anything in space that was more difficult that a night carrier landing."
@@MarsFKA "a lot"
K.
I remember my dad's WW2 training buddy saying: "Best fighter of the war", of the Corsair, as my dad fought back his indignation at the comment made in my bedroom as as a teenager with models of both aircraft on display, with the pair of them inspecting. Dad flew the Seafire XV in 802 Sqn. I remain, to this day, conflicted over the comment! I think his name was Roy Brown (Scottish). This would have been about 1976.
Excellent video with many great firsthand accounts! Thank you!
It seems fitting that it was British tinkering, in the same league as Hobart's funnies and the installation of the seventeen-pounder in the Sherman Firefly, that brought this aircraft to its full potential. Also, thanks to the commenters who filled in the gaps on the Corsair's early deployment on US carriers in 1944 and the reasons behind the scheduling of the replacement of the Hellcat with the Corsair.
... and don't forget the Brits "tinkering" with the P-51 that then made the Mustang's reputation!! 👍
@@idleonlooker1078 Well pointed out. As well as the Merlin, the Malcolm hood also played a part.
Good to see films and commentary from our British allies on how they operated Corsairs. Would love to hear about their experiences with other US Navy aircraft
You will find wildcat, hellcat and avenger on my page. As well as plenty other similar veteran accounts of sea fire, fulmar, swordfish etc
My dad was on the Ark Royal in the sixties. He told me about a gannet that had engine failure just after going down the catapult and went into the sea. The pilot told the navigator to not get out even as the aeroplane sank. The aeroplane sank the Ark Royal went right past the aeroplane. When the ship had gone they both got out to the and survived. The pilot got a commendation. To have left the aircraft was certain death as the propellers would have sucked the aircrew in. You have to hand it to the guy's balls of steel.
Testicles are not, nor ever were incompressible. Valour is a mystery to me. Dr John.
I wonder how many english speakers of Standard English understand split infinitives, a major concern in the early 60s. (To not get out, versus not to get out). Painfully pedantic perhaps but now normal. Don't give me that stuff about language changing.
My father trained on the F4U. He said that it was a very scary experience to begin with. The corsair was not tolerant of fools or inattention to detail or delayed action in the cockpit. It is said that the F4U killed more pilots in training that any other front line fighter. It was thusly and probably accurately known as the "ensign eliminator" and "the Widowmaker"
REALLY extraordinarily good content...your passion for the subject shows. Perfectionism is a good thing sometimes, don’t let anyone tell you different. (Love the Corsairs on the transfer barges btw...)
Thanks. It's both an experiment and an outlet. And I wince when I watch them again, seeing all the stupid errors that slip through (usually generated by fixing other errors at the last moment).
Terrific work!! Thank you for this! The amount and variety of footage is amazing!
On 13 February 1943, the Vought F4U Corsair flew its first operational mission when Guadalcanal-based Marine Fighter Squadron VMF-124 F4U-1 Corsairs escorted U. S. Army Air Corps B-24 Liberator bombers on a raid against Kahili Airfield on Bougainville. The Marines asserted air dominance flying Corsairs from primitive forward land bases throughout the Pacific. The SeeBees gained quite a reputation for very quickly building airstrips on newly won and even still contested islands. This was important because the US Army Air Corps operated medium and heavy bombers from longer more developed airstrips. The Corsair could fly with either a centerline drop tank or two wing mounted drop tanks.
Thanks, I appreciate that historical tidbit.
@Hoa Tattis - the Corsair had a much longer combat career and production run than either the Hurricane or the P-38 - well through the 1950’s.
@Hoa Tattis according to the Imperial War Museum, UK, the Hurricane was restricted from front line combat fighter duty by May of 1942 and was replaced by the Spitfire. Seems like the Russians didn’t much care for it either.
Love the Bend Wing Bird. Bless the Royal Navy Aviators who proved the Corsairs could be operated off of carriers.
Royal Navy really was an innovator when it came to carrier ops.
Aye, but necessity is also the mother of invention. US Navy was a bit spoiled in having two really good planes to choose from so they went with the one that seemed to pose fewer problems and had less of a learning curve. I think the Royal Navy, though, had more of an incentive to try to make the Corsair work, I'm thankful that they did and that their efforts went a long way to proving the Corsair's worth.
My dad was USMC Corsair pilot in WWII and Korea; never flew off a carrier.
Great film, thanks for showing it to us.
Amazing story about bravery and persistence. I didn't know the Brits also flew the Corsairs.
the Brits flew most US aircraft, p40, p47, p51, wildcat, hellcat, corsair, avenger, b17, b24, b25, b26, baltimores, marylands, bostons, hudsons, venturas, catalinas........
@@paulnutter1713 Yup just never saw a Corsair in RAF insignia before
@@noroardanto the fleet air arm worked out the curved landing approach, the raised seat for better visibility and modified oleos to prevent bounce on landing. The Royal Navy were the only ones to use Corairs and Hellcats in northern Europe
Great, great work! Such modest men, Heroes all!!
The British had to shorten the wingtips to fit the Corsair in the hangars, this cured by accident the plane floating down the deck due to too much lift from the wings. The suspension Oleo legs bounce was cured by lowering its pressure. A simple modification to the leading edge of one wing made both wings stall evenly, rather than one wing stall first and drop a wing flipping the aircraft. A curved landing approach looking through the kink in the wing enabled sight to deck. Later on the US fleet had more and more carriers and needed more aircraft and started using Corsairs on them again.
edit/check!
Did they not also get engines without the superchargers? Heard this a long time ago and forget where I had heard it.
? Did not understand your lingo.
Who's lingo are you talking about?
Then they stuffed them on escort carriers. Someone must have said "can't."
Just INCREDIBLE! These amazing aviators had BALLS OF SOLID STEEL!!!! God bless every single one of them!
Yes 100%. Read "Corsair Down" by Martin Irons. Hard to believe the "BALLS" of the Corsair pilots.
@@maxschell8823 I OWN that one man, and it is special!
Nicely produced and very entertaining. Well they. Thanks for sharing.
Just looking at the position of the canopy in the Corsair, It is no wonder that it would be hard to land the aircraft safely onto the carrier. These men from the Fleet Air Arm have the balls of steel to land this thing into the carrier, knowing that doing so is close to impossible, but they still did it.
The prototype had the cockpit further forward, but when the decision was made to move it, the rest of the design was set.
The RN developed a curved landing approach onto the deck, as mentioned in the Video, which made it quite possible to land successfully. You need balls to land on a Carrier anyway.
@@anthonywilson4873 NO it is not true. Several U.S. Navy squadrons were deck qualified before the Brits had a Corsair. Also the "curved approach" is NOT unique to the Corsair. 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 Also read "F4U Corsair at War" by Abrams. There is a chapter in which Royal Navy Corsair pilot Hanson describes in detail the Corsair landing issues December 1943 and January 1944. Also read "Carrier Pilot" by Hanson. If you are really into aircraft carrier history Boone Guyton was flying the Boeing F4B "curved approach" in 1936 on the carrier deck Lexington in 1936. Same issue, i.e. forward visibility.
@@maxschell8823 History I didn't know; surprise, surprise.
Errm, sic ...
Thank you.
"Military and naval aviation in America has been developed to the full. What a relief that has been to the Australians and New Zealanders. The United States Naval Air Service has provided us with many types of naval machines that we lack."
below 820
Hansard FLEET AIR ARM HL Deb 27 January 1943 on line
When the Nazi barbarians are at the gates, long-term thinking goes out the window in favor of maximum immediate bang for buck.
The Fleet Air Arm was the primary victim of the 1940 Battle of Britain emergency order to suspend all development on engines and aircraft other than the best RAF types.
The consequences of this decision were severe, however. HMS Formidable was bombed in 1941 because there were not enough spares to get all her fighters operational. And the "stop gap" Fulmar had to remain in operation a year longer than planned, with only the Sea Hurricane and Wildcat available to replace it.
@@ArmouredCarriers For your consideration. "There is a controversy between those who say that the Admiralty did not get what it wanted for the Fleet Air Arm and those who say that the Admiralty was not very clever at explaining what exactly it 796
was that it wanted. I noticed quite recently that Air Marshal Dowding has gone on record as saying that the Admiralty got precisely the types which it specified and demanded. Whatever may be the rights and wrongs of this controversy there is certainly no doubt whatever about it that war found the Fleet Air Arm equipped with extremely bad aircraft. But there is one other thing I think which should be said in fairness. The Admiralty regained control of the Fleet Air Arm in 1937, rather less, I think, than two years before war broke out, and when war did come it found the Admiralty struggling with the enormous task of constituting the Fleet Air Arm, and those difficulties were very great indeed. One has only to consider the difficulties about personnel-the expansion of personnel from 3,000 to 10,000 which the Admiralty was struggling with. We see the results of that to-day when in those great operations in the Malta Convoy 90 per cent. of the pilots belonged to the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. They were also caught with a very difficult job about maintenance. Maintenance is all-important to the Fleet Air Arm because a Fleet Air Arm pilot cannot do a crash landing in a convenient field. The Admiralty had to borrow some 1,500 to 1,600 maintenance ratings from the Royal Air Force. No one would blame the Royal Air Force for not wishing to lend its best and brightest in the way of personnel. The Fleet Air Arm has always had a great struggle in that connexion, and maintenance has been a very great problem."
Hansard FLEET AIR ARM. HL Deb 27 January 1943 vol 125 cc794-829 page
Oh, absolutely. All navies struggled to bridge the pre-radar gap when it came to over-water navigation. The RN wanted observers for that purpose. The difference is that these challenges remained part of the equation longer due to the Battle of Britain shut-down.
The Firefly is a perfect example of this. It was a two-seater designed for operations over the North Atlantic when the USN and IJN were going for single-seaters for the Pacific (gambling at the risk of losing pilots every time they flew over the horizon). But The Firefly was delivered two years late becaues of the shut-down, by which time radar guidance had solved the navigation problem. But a fully navalised Seafire (proposed in 1939) was cancelled by the Battle of Britain. And the RAF didnt release enough Spitfire production to modify for naval operations (Seafire) before 1943. Thus the "capabilty gap" before the Sea Fury and Sea Hornet came online in 1946.
It's a fascinating subject.
I recomment "Fighters Over the Fleet" and "American & British Aircraft Carrier Development" as excellent examinations of the complexity behind this scenario.
It's not the simple picture the interservice blame-game depicts it to be.
@@nickdanger3802
I had a 1:5-scale radio control Corsair. Even that thing was a ticklish brute to land. Beautiful flier, tho.
splendid videos, excellent quality each and every one. thanks!
7:59 Talking about the Spitfire's stalling characteristics: "It was an awful job to make it stall...it would just sink."
The Spitfire's wing stalled from the root outwards, so the pilot had full aileron control until the stall was fully developed.
I was at the Midway carrier museum in San Diego some 10 or so years ago and 2 very old WW II pilots; one a Corsair pilot, the other a Hellcat pilot; were each extolling the advantages of their plane. I should have videoed it...
Back in the 80s, I ran into a "Banana Wars" enlisted pilot at the Quantico Air Museum. He was full of great stories.
@@busterdee8228 I bet! Fabulous u.s. imperialism, (Banana Wars ) must have killed many civilians. Compare and contrast with the Mexican-American war, Spanish-American war, Grenada, Panama, not to mention Korea and Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan etc etc. great stories nae doot for the victorious survivors.
Great video and great stories....however, the main reason the USN initally chose the Hellcat over the Corsair was one of logistics. Yes the Corsair had its problems but to have two fighters on a carrier with all their spare parts would have been a logistical nightmare. The Hellcat was not giving any serious problems, the navy picked the Hellcat, in 1943 that was probably the correct choice. The US Marines benefited greatly from that decision.
Yes, and starting in February of 1943 on Henderson Field Guadalcanal the US Marines used the Corsair to assert air dominance from forward bases throughout the Pacific. On 13 February 1943, the Vought F4U Corsair flew its first operational mission when Guadalcanal-based Marine Fighter Squadron VMF-124 F4U-1 Corsairs escorted U. S. Army Air Corps B-24 Liberator bombers on a raid against Kahili Airfield on Bougainville.
The accident rate of the F4U was horrendous...and the performance increment over the F6F didn’t matter much in the latter half of the Pacific war. The winning aircraft wasn’t necessarily the highest performance but the one which an average fighter pilot could extract the maximum he was capable of....which is a different thing.
@@jamesanderton344 - Yes, you’re right about the accident rate (mostly early). But the Corsair was also a phenomenal fighter-bomber that in the hands of the Marine Corps was the plane that started US Combat Close Air Support Doctrine. It was the Corsair that was the piston aircraft the FAA, the USN, and the USMC kept after WW2, and it was the Corsair that was invaluable to the Allies in Korea and the French in Indochina and Algeria.
@@jamesanderton344 As Leroy Grumman said...I paraphrase ...he wanted an aircraft built by shoe sale clerks, maintained by shoe sale clerks and flown by....yes..shoe sale clerks...the F6F Hellcat.
@@petersouthernboy6327 Post war, a strong case can be made that the Douglas Skyraider was the logical choice as a piston carrier based attack aircraft....by Korea, a Corsair was useless as a fighter and was outclassed by the AD in the attack role, but with similar maintenance and logistics...I’d love to dig deeper into that procurement....Vought aircraft had a relatively poor history in USN service until the Crusader.....I’d be tempted to believe that F4U procurement had political factors involved....
The RN tamed the Corsair and taught the USN how to use it on a carrier. Adjusting the oleos to fix the bouncing and adopting a wide, looping approach to land allowing the pilot to see the deck and the LSO right until the last minute - made the F4U a carrier darling. Almost ;)
Read "F4U Corsair at War"by Abrams. Go to the chapter written by Norman Hanson Royal Navy Corsair pilot. In that chapter Hanson makes it clear the RN had not perfected the Corsair landing procedure, December 1943. Further in the book "Whistling Death" by Boone Guyton (Chance Vought PRIMARY test pilot) the U.S. Navy was being taught the curved carrier approach long before the RN had the Corsair.
Eric Brown, was the one who tamed the Corsair, for the Fleet Air Arm. Brilliant flyer, who carried out 2,400+ deck landings that has never been surpassed. A really great book to read on the Corsair with the British Pacific Fleet, is "Carrier Pilot" by Norman Hanson.
Having attended Edinburgh University myself in the late 60s, and learnt about this bloke, mortified I never heard him speak; although he'd attended Loretto (school), very posh, and somewhat right-wing. Imagine owning an MG Magnette in 1939.
Like Douglas Bader, not terribly compassionate I suspect. Brave to the point of recklessness; must have been hard for his wife and any children.
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
@@johnconlon9652 Post war in the Fleet Air arm it was also very hard on the families. I knew a WW2 -1952 pilot who flew the Corsair during the war but with all the experimenting post 1945, according to his wife, the dreaded senior officer plus padre would visit officers married quarters (houses) at least once a week.
@@maxschell8823 It wasn't 'a curved approach' but a more technical curved approach devised by the FAA that made the landings safer. The FAA had been using technical curved approaches adapted for different types of long nosed, in-line engined aircraft including the Seafire, for some years before.
It’s a very British trait everyone even the ships cat is a critic
"Whether it lies at the Admiralty or at the Ministry of Aircraft Production, or 797
whether it lies with the Minister of Defence or the War Cabinet, these are things which require a great deal of knowledge and information before one could decide; but the responsibility must lie somewhere for the fact that in the fourth year of war the Fleet Air Arm is still so ill-equipped as to be robbing this country of the opportunity of great and victorious strokes at sea while at the same time inflicting very unnecessary perils upon the pilots."
Hansard FLEET AIR ARM. HL Deb 27 January 1943 page
Brilliant. I wish i could recommend you/this enough.
It was great listening to these guys, thanks!!
Brilliant documentary!
Again, just great images. I just found your series and it is consistently first class.
Currently sick with CFS/ME/SEID- it can make it difficult to form new memories. I can’t remember what we ate for dinner (tea-UK) a couple of hours ago even though I cooked it. Yet, I haven’t used, or even thought of, the term ‘tail flash’ in 40 years.
My goodness the chap at 5:13 was on top of his game !
Very nice! Happy to see the F4U getting some luv
My father in law was on the same Palembang raid, he scored one of the Nates.
For some reason, it made me so proud to hear pilots from the UK singing the praise of the Corsairs! I knew it was them that taught the US pilots how to land them on a deck. I did not know that the US no longer provided the Corsairs to the UK after the US Navy started using them. Fantastic stories and footage!!
@@maxschell8823 Well it seems illustrious bodies like the Smithsonian and even the US Navy disagree with your comment. Anyway can you provide quotes and sources? Especially "Carrier Pilot" by Hanson. Page numbers will do as I have the book.
@@maxschell8823 Well well well. No page number for the book I have.
I wonder why?
Not everyone does Facebook and I don't precisely because of the utter crap and lies that are passed off as 'facts' on there.
You clearly have an agenda and obviously have found some sources you can manipulate to suit that agenda. Thats cool and you are free to do so. But don't try and fabricate your own facts.
When the US Navy itself supports the fact that it was the Royal Navy pilots who developed the landing approach for the Corsair then your agenda is dead in the water. Excuse the pun. You can be sure if there was any chance of crediting Americans then they would do it.
But we shouldn't be surprised the Royal Navy cracked this problem as it built the first carrier on 1918 and delivered every major carrier development since. And in 1941 it had more carriers than the US Navy and was the largest Navy in the world until 1944.
@@1chish 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.
@@maxschell8823 Whatever Pal. I lost interest when you failed to give a straight answer some time back.
@@1chish Interested in history for decades, I think of Henry Ford's comment, history being "bunk". Clearly, sic, he might have been referring to the victors writing it, in which case he was right.
"Illustrious" bodies I no longer trust, even textbooks. Academia, don't you hate it.
You might put that in your pipe, if you have one.
Aged Irishman.
So landing a Corsair on a carrier was "the easiest thing ever". Im interested in what that fellow regarded as difficult!
Fascinating that Brits developed the armoured flight deck, impervious to kamikaze attacks, the angled approach, which allows the Corsair to become a much safer aircraft to land on a carrier deck and finally the angled deck. All developments which of course the US adopted sooner or later.
As well as the steam catapult, landing mirrors and ski-jump. In fact, virtually all the main carrier concepts and innovations.
Bob Collins states @3:20 that the "Americans gave them up because they were too fast at landing" and John Maybank @12:50 that the Oleo legs were badly adjusted and in addition the Corsair has been stated post-war to be unsuitable for carriers, but this is untrue. US Navy documents at the time reveal that the Corsairs were only relegated to islands initially because of Vought's inability to produce as many as the Navy needed and it was decided to concentrate them and the Hellcats for supply chain efficiency. Vought's production limitations are why Brewster and Goodyear were issues contracts for Corsairs as well - the US Navy clearly liked and wanted the Corsair. The Oleo strut issue John Maybank mentioned was true on the shakedown cruise, but Vought technicians had a design fix ready by the time they returned to shore.
Correct. The narrations and not always accurate. There are a number of reliable sources for accurate information e.g. "Whistling Death" by Boone Guyton, "Jolly Rogers" by Blackburn etc.
So! Are you saying that it was not the FAAs experience with the 'oleo bounce' that caused the changes?
"The Oleo strut issue John Maybank mentioned was true on the shakedown cruise, but Vought technicians had a design fix ready by the time they returned to shore"
And that...
"US Navy documents at the time reveal that the Corsairs were only relegated to islands initially because of Vought's inability to produce as many as the Navy needed"
was the only reason why the FAA were using the Corsair (carrier based) offensively 7 months before the USN?
It's OK researching what you want to find. But ignoring other reasons and context is another.
Something like 118 US Marine Corps pilots made Ace during WW2 - the vast majority of them flying the Corsair. All of the forward bases in the Pacific island hopping campaign had Marine Corsairs. By 1945, Navy and Marine fighter pilots had become quite good with bombs and rockets, and in 1945 about 3/4ths of the carrier Air groups were fighters due to the Kamikaze situation. During Operation Ten Go on April 7, 1945, at 13:30 a USN fighter pilot in a Corsair put a 1,000 pound AP bomb through the port bow of Yamato
Were they operating from carriers? These marine Corps ones, Before the British were?
@@Gfdsa40 Marine pilots operated from Carriers in the last stages of the Pacific Campaign. Mostly they operated from Escort carriers in support of amphibious forces on the ground. They provided close air support, carrier air patrols and anti-Kamikaze work as the Corsair was faster and better able to intercept Kamikaze's than the F6F. They also operated from the captured Islands as well. The Marine Corp was one of the leading developers of close air support before and during World War II and were still using Corsairs in the Korean War for this mission.
@@Gfdsa40 Two USN fighter squadrons were qualified to operate Corsairs from carriers in 1943, including VF-17 on USS Bunker Hill. The *REAL* reason that US carriers didn’t start seeing Corsairs until April 1944 was logistics - the USN simply didn’t want to complicate parts and support since Hellcats were already on carriers and the Marines were making very good use of the Corsairs. As more new Essex Class fleet carriers appeared, Navy and Marine Corsair squadrons deployed on carriers. In 1945, as the kamikaze situation developed and the US found itself on Japan’s doorstep - the aircraft mix changed to 75% fighters and then the Corsair really started to become prominent on US fleet carriers.
@@Squad23jta USN Escort Carriers like the Casablanca Class operated the FM2 “Wilder Wildcat” because of size and space constraints. It was actually a pretty good fighter. The FM2 had a bigger engine (1350hp), larger vertical tail surface, and larger fuel tanks.
@@Gfdsa40 The US Navy gave up on the Corsair as a carrier fighter because it was difficult to land on the deck, they had the Grumman Hellcat coming along anyway. They declared it their shore based fighter bomber and the Marines ended up with it the first serious pushback against the Japanese air power in the Soloman Islands. The British kept at it and developed the curving approach landing as shown in this video. The American navy began flying the Corsair off the carriers in 1944 using the British landing method along with the Hellcats, they called them the terrible twosome.
Awesome. Heroes. Flying a wonderful Warbird. Thank you.
Thank you. Very interesting.
Great stuff, keep 'em coming fella!
Friends brother was navy 1960's. He said his brother was nearly hit by ejection seat on the goofing deck.
Amazing vid. Thanks uploader.
Brilliant. Enjoyed every minute of that. Such guts!
The commentary in its partner video includes lines like how a class of trainee pilots were grumbling about having to fly such a dangerous aicraft - right up to the point when the Corsairs were delivered by women Air Transport Auxiliary pilots ...
Did you see all the splinters flying when an American Corsair tipped over and started to chew up the deck. And it’s like no two RN Corsairs had the same roundels or tail flash.
@Hoa Tattis I have read up yet how to tell between different Commonwealth forces’ insignia in the Pacific theatre. Did you ever see the picture of a crashed Spitfire/Seafire in USMC colours? The Pacific was crazy with different allied colour schemes.
Well done.
Excellent! Many thanks indeed
It's amazing how many different variations there are in the FAA markings you see over the entire video. Small white circle, big white circle, bars, no bars - at 22:05 there's even one with the central red circle (probably European/Mediterranean operations rather than the Pacific).
Yeah. The standard roundel was used off Norway. But the red "meatball" was a problem in the Indian Ocean. So an interim modification was a hasty repaint of the original roundel - removing the red and yellow and leaving the blue circle with a white centre. By the time the fleet arrived in the Pacific a new design was settled on - a blue-white roundel with US-style "bars".
@@johnklatt3522 Yeah, those were the early ones they used pre-war (I think they gone by Midway, or painted over). The bars were relatively late war (late 1944?) and were the result of some testing they did - there's a photo at the US Airforce Museum that shows a line of four fighters painted with different fuselage markings (including German ones) and at a distance the the US insignia with the bars was the easiest to distinguish from other markings.
I love the Corsair. Some of it's American nicknames were Hognose. Hosenose and Ensign Eliminator. The Japanese called it Whistling Death.
I'll bet the Marines loved calling it the "Ensign Eliminator" while they were flying the meanest machine over the South Pacific. In your face, boat boys!
I enjoyed it. What I noticed was that the Brits, like Aussies, were shirtless on the flight line. That never happens on a US ship/base.
My RAAF Sqn went to Hawaii for an antisub exercise. On landing our groundies went to service the birds in shorts only. The Yank CO was apoplectic, strictly verboten.
@Hoa Tattis When in Rome ...
Wonderful video
Tankyou guys!
I say Sir, you seem to have got all the audio queens off your back!
well done!
Интересная хроника и интервь В период ВОВ (1939-1945г.) это даёт понимание о мощи развития авиациии тем более палубной и кораблестроения.
As a child in my motherland, mes amis, I read the memoirs of a chap who was a combat pilote of one of these in WWII. He claimed that the Flight Manual stated that the glide-characteristics were SO poor, that if the engine stopped, you should bail-out (if high enough) ... OR 'Whistle A Happy Tune and Kiss Your Ass Goodbye '! ... because a 'dead-stick’ landing was very iffy.
08:57 "The propellor was thirteen foot from top to bottom. The biggest propellor ever, in a fighter aircraft."
The Typhoon and Tempest had 14-feet-diameter propellors.
The Corsair had a 14 foot prop. So yes; the Fleet Air Arm pilot made a wee mistake. But he was correct in that the prop was the biggest fitted to a WW 2 fighter and most particularly a carrier fighter. It just so happens that the Typhoon also had a 14 foot prop; not so sure about the Tempest. In any event, in my limited experience of air crew veterans; they were far more interested in trying to survive being shot at, than memorizing the technical details of this or that bit of equipment.
@@haroldgodwinson832 The three-blade propellor on the Corsair was 13 feet four inches. The Typhoon and Tempest had 14-feet-diameter propellors, both three and four-blade.
It's a good thing that we later generations are able to be precise about minor details that the guys who actually flew the aircraft while being shot at might not remember accurately...
@@haroldgodwinson832 Fabulous comment. I might be terrified with a six foot prop.
Great work all around.
Thank you
Looks Great! Next time use AI sound to normalize the volumes or do it the old fashion way - add 3-4 tracks of the same low sound to bring it to normal levels! Look forward to more work with better sound.
Granddad flew corsairs and taught night time navigation during Korea. He had a few tails of losing men during training flights from underestimating the Corsair.
Chapeau Bas à ces pilotes doués et courageux. Extraordinaires
Wonder how many extra props the carriers had to store on board.
Thankyou American for giving the British some decent aircraft for the carrier fleet
You gave us the engine that made the P51 into the premier long range escort fighter of the war so we’re even.