What a wonderful historical piece about this plane. There are loads of American documentaries, but I have never seen one of British pilots. Rare markings and different colored planes for modellers. What strikes the most is, that man make a machine run effective. Well trained and unspoiled Brits appreciated. Thanks a lot for this rare footage! Extremely appreciated! 👏👏👏
Love this. First hand account: "Typical American, overbuilt". And typical Brits. "We can sort this out with a few changes." Also enjoyed the note that the airframes were built by GM/Frigidaire. Ah, the good old days when you could buy a fridge that could survive landing on an armored deck without spilling the milk.
Allied cooperation... the P-51 Mustang wouldn’t have been a great fighter without the British Rolls-Royce Merlin engine. The Corsair only became a great naval fighter only after the Fleet Air Arm solved the carrier landing issues.
@@Idahoguy10157 Don't forget the P-51 was one of the greatest gun platforms for a fighter plane. And lest not forget how many bomber crews were saved by the escorting 51s up to the 17 tens start of their bombing runs. Many a crew of B17s were saved just before their bombing runs. During the bomb runs the P-51s would look for targets of opportunity like trains, planes on the ground and factories. I got to fly back seat in a 51 back in the 70s for $200 !!! Shortly after that I took flying lessons.
@@butchyshoe P-47s would have actually had the range to escort B-17s had Hap Arnold and his "Bomber Mafia" not banned the use of drop tanks for pursuit fighters early on. Hap Arnold was so convinced bombers could outrun fighters and didn't need escorts, he actively handicapped escort fighters. At the time of the Schweinfurt-Regensburg mission, a 200 gal centerline tank for the P-47 already existed as did the hardpoint to mount it. It would have comfortably given the P-47 the combat radius to escort on that mission. Lives were needlessly lost just for the sake of trying to prove their bomber doctrine. In order to cover up their criminal short-sightedness and avoid the fallout that would follow, the Eighth Air Force published reports after the war that selectively choose correct but out of context facts. Saying that only the arrival of the P-51 gave them the escort fighter they needed. But comparing a late 1944 Mustang with a 1943 Thunderbolt with smaller tanks than later models. The Eighth Air Force lied by omission to cover their asses and the cover story was so convincing, people still believe it to this day.
My grandad was a Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm rigger at HMS Garuda (repair yard) in India during the war. He also spent some time on them in Sri Lanka (Ceylon as it was called then). He loved them. He worked on Wildcats (he never called them Martlet), Seafires and did his trade training at Garston on Swordfish but the Corsairs were the ones he talked most about.
My dad was an aviation machinists mate in the USN. Like your granddad, the Corsair was his favorite, and he touched nearly all USN and USMC carrier aircraft. The plane he disliked most? The F2A Brewster Buffalo, which he worked over at Norfolk Naval Air Station in 1941. "A hunk 'a junk. We couldn't keep those Buffalos in the air".
@@redskindan78 Interesting about the Brewster. The one my grandad complained about was the Seafire. It was adapted and not designed for naval operations and even with the modifications they took a heavy pounding which could make them a nightmare to keep in top shape.
I never knew you Brits had the Corsair. I'm a US Marine's son (fighter pilot, but the F-4 Phantom II), so I love this plane. I'm glad you could tame her and love her too!
The Royal Navy were desperate for a modern naval fighter. None of the British naval fighters were very good, and planes like the spitfire were never designed to absorb heavy landings on a carrier deck, so they couldn’t really use that . Even the naval version of the spitfire, the seafire, spent more time being wrecked on deck landings than it did shooting down enemy aircraft. The RN desperately needed a fighter designed specifically as a carrier fighter from the word go, which is why they bought the Corsair.
It'll blow your mind to discover the French had them as well and used them from carriers. Saw extensive combat in the late 40s into the 50s. So the Viet Minh were on the receiving end of the Corsairs for a few years.
@@earthenjadis8199 The US wanted Corsairs to be brought back out of mothballs for use as ground attack aircraft in Korea. But there were hardly any left, they’d all been scrapped. So they had to use mustangs instead, which were far from ideal as their water cooled merlin engines were much more susceptible to damage from AA. They lost a lot of mustangs that way, from damage Corsairs and Thunderbolts would have survived.
The RN helped development of the Corsair in the carrier role when the USN had taken a pass... They tuned the landing gear to eliminate a the bounce, and developed the circling approach to work around the visibility isues for having the cockpit so far back... Great airplane, fantastic fighter. But like all new introductions into operations had teething problems and the Brits did a fantastic job of working through them to help the Corsair meet its intended design goals. That said, for the USN the Hellcat made more sense... Cheaper, simpler to maintain, easier to fly by average pilots who could now hold their own against anything the Japanese throw at them also given the advantage of newer tactics the plane early begin to come into its own at that point
These are hard times for Great Britain and the US. I was pleased and proud to hear the British veterans speak highly of the Corsair and America. Thank you all !!!
Awesome video the Royal Navy's participation in the latter stages of the Pacific war is hardly covered but great job here on this video can't wait for part 2
It's so weird seeing the F-4U Corsair painted that way. I'm so used to seeing it in (mostly) blue with a big white star. It was the British that figured out aircraft carriers with an angled deck could launch and retrieve aircraft at the same time (also something with mirrors for the landing pilots too).
Thank you for the refresher that made me go...Hey...I knew that!!! It's one of those things I knew, and until you made your comment, I didn't remember I knew it. More important...It's one of those things I do not want to forget!!! Then, there is always the Original Black Sheep, Greg "Pappy" Boyington. I bring him up because I had the honor and privilege of not only meeting him, but having photos taken with him, as well as several of his autographed Lithos, so, I think that covers why I had to bring him up. I personal, while brief, connection. I have another story about the F4U Corsair, and one of the Marines that became an Ace flying it, and also restored one and I saw him flying it in simulated battle conditions in the early 80's, but I digress. Just really great memories. Thank you again...
@John Munro I've read that remark about the Beaufighter as well although it was only the one aircraft delivery. Also that the lack of complaints was due to shame.
Great interviews,thanks. Got to talk with Marine F4U & US Navy Aces when put on air combat symposiums in 90’s & early 2000’s . They liked it in combat but until landing gear modified it bounced on deck . Also needed spoiler on wing to control snap stalls. British had to crop wing tips to fit their smaller carriers hangers but this cured stall problem.
As he was used to being the fastest plane in the sky my stepfather was amazed when his Corsair was buzzed by a Gloster Meteor that then disappeared like nothing he had ever seen before! Many people don't realise that our first jet fighter was active during the last year of the war!
Most people don’t realise the Meteor was operational from mid 1943 (and was 10% faster than the Me262). The American P-80 Shooting Star was operated in Europe from 1944.
The Meteor F.1 and F.3 (early) was powered by Welland jet engines, and had a top speed lower than wartime F4U Corsairs. (Around 415 mph in level flight.) Allan, I don’t know where you read that Meteors were faster than Me-262’s, but contemporaneous models were definitely not close to the Swallow in terms of top speed in level flight. I suspect they’re comparing the Meteor F.8, operational in the early 1950’s. The “proper” WW2 Meteor version to compare to 262’s is the F.3 w/2,000 lb thrust Derwent I engines, first full squadron of which was activated on the continent in March, 1945. They had a top speed in the mid-400’s, about 100mph slower than Swallows.
@@tettehpecku4393 Me262 - 490kt 560mph Gloster Derwent Meteor - 520kt 606mph The Derwent Meteor had twice the thrust of the Me262 but was structurally limited as to maximum Mach number (as was the Me262). As for swept wings - the DC-3 has more wing sweep than the Me-262… The Meteor exceeded the Me262’s performance in every way in late 1944.
The last Canadian who won the Victoria Cross, Lt. Robert Gray of British Columbia, did so in a Corsair. Here's a citation from Wikipedia about him. "On August 9, 1945, at Onagawa Bay, Miyagi Prefecture, Japan, Lieutenant Gray (flying a Vought F4U Corsair) led an attack on a group of Japanese naval vessels, sinking the Etorofu-class escort ship Amakusa before his plane crashed into the bay."
Third time I have watched this one. I was fortunate to know a US Corsair pilot when I was growing up. He flew a number of aircraft in his career, and the Corsair was his absolute favorite. There is a reason it was the only WWII fighter still in production in 1951...
My father flew the Corsair with the RNZAF (16 and 22 squadrons) as a land based fixed wing version. The first corsairs NZ purchased were folding wing models that were used for training. On takeoff my father noticed one of the ‘wing bolts had popped’, he put it on a gentle circuit and got back on the ground safely. They had already had one kill the pilot after a wing folded in flight!
The last RNZAF Corsair - made by Goodyear - is based at Hood Aerodrome, Masterton, in New Zealand and flies at the airshows around the country. At the Classic Fighters Omaka air shows it is parked in the hangar for the night and, before it is towed outside for the start of the day's activities, we, the fans, are allowed to get up close and personal with it, and all the other aircraft in the hangar - things like P40s, a P51 and a couple of Mark IX Spitfires, but I digress. The first impression of the Corsair is how BIG it is when sitting beside the afore-mentioned aircraft. America had access to impressive radial engines and were able to design equally impressive aircraft to make use of all that power. The Corsair is painted in US markings and colour scheme and, at on the of the Classic Fighters Omaka airshows that I attended, the announcer, when asked why it was not in RNZAF markings and colour, said it would cost around NZ$15,000 to make the change.
@@MarsFKA There is one lost in the hills behind Westport, lost heading to Wigram in 1944, it has never been found despite numerous searches. The pilot was Brian Barstow.
Another model documentary from this excellent site. Good to hear from Ronald Hay RM and his comrades, pity not to have an interview with Eric Brown who wrote about the Corsair in ‘Wings of the Navy’. Thank you once again!
@@brianjones3191 The phrase off your own back is often used to refer to something done by using one's own initiative, but in origin it's a cricketing idiom, off your own bat, but both phrases are considered correct.
@@RedMac63 "Back" may one day become accepted by dictionaries, because it is very often mistakenly and incorrectly used. Many incorrect words eventually become accepted through continual use. I expect this one will join them. But for now, it is still incorrect.
I'm no pilot...having only ridden in a small Cessna "puddle jumper" when I was four years old in the mountains of West Virginia, and too short to see anything unless the pilot banked the plane in a turn enough so that I could see the ground lol. But, I've always had a love for aircraft and a huge respect for those men and women who fly them. What I've always heard verbatim from pilots all over the world is that in combat, you fly your craft right at the ragged edge of uncontrollability. And, almost every pilot who flew the Corsair enjoyed the way it performed in the air. But, it took some ballsy Limeys to show everybody else how to land em correctly on aircraft carriers. Thank God for them for achieving that. Now, at fifty-five and retired, I get to delve back into being the history buff that I enjoyed being so much as a kid. Anyway, I will always carry a great admiration towards those who fly, and also a great respect. I'll keep a good thought for you all. Perhaps, if it's "in the cards," I'll have the opportunity to fly once before my time here on earth is done. My heartfelt thanks to all for your service, and how you've shaped history.
A friend of mine flew one in Korea. He loved it! They would fly low while the jets flew higher above them. On one mission into enemy territory, he heard the order to break left. Instinctively, he did and he saw MIG tracers shoot by his canopy. Funny thing is, none of the other pilots in his flight said anything.
I always underestimate just how *huge* these planes are. I keep thinking of those little single-engine Cessna 172s I see at the local airport, so I see a single-engine fighter and just mentally lump it in the same category. Then 2:08 rolls around and I'm reminded just how enormous they are.
@@kirbyculp3449 The Pratt&Whitney R2800 was famously used in several of the best twin-engine bombers and transports, but not in any 4-engine bombers at all, nor even any 4-engine transports until one French design [ *Edit* ~Stupidly left out the definitive 4-engine application of the R-2800 : The indispensable & immortal Douglas DC-6! I knew I was forgetting something...] after the war. The larger/heavier, more powerful (and initially much more troublesome & unreliable) Wright R-3350 was the engine whose ongoing development was prioritized as the basis of the B-29 program, and whose poorly-configured installation remained the unresolved "Achilles Heel" of that airplane. The R-3350 never really fulfilled its potential until post-war, in the Lockheed Constellation airliner, whose development during the war had been delayed precisely because of all the troubles the engine had in the B-29.
@@markfryer9880 The Wright 3350 was eminently successful in both the Skyraider and the Constellation, but the Connie came earlier. As such, the Connie was the pertinent point re. delays/problems with the 3350 development, which was the issue at stake in the B-29 comment I was answering. Connie was technically accepted by the military earlier in the war (than the Skyraider's delivery in late '45), although the Douglas C-54 had largely usurped that role by the time the Lockheed was ready to go.
The 109s, Spits, & 51s are about the same size as the c-172 or to keep with a tail dragger, a c-170. Check wing span, length, & height. Think about that. Then you realize why the warbirds could so easily torque roll if power was applied too rapidly. Sttod beside all at KSMO one day. Was amazed at the height of the vertical stab height of all 3 while they were sitting on the ramp. Tiny aircraft. The radial powered birds were bigger. Couldn’t believe the size of the P-47 in comparison.
Extraordinary video and the info provided by the same pilots who manned these beasts is absolutely fantastic. Incidentally, I never saw a Corsair at Duxford Air Museum back in 1989. Hope to return to England once this nasty virus is finally contained.
Yeah, I saw it there years back. The best way to describe the fuselage is basically a massive long engine with a cockpit and tail strapped to the back of it!!! Great to hear our lads made good use of it :)
A friend of my mothers flew with the RNZAF in WW2 , His name was Mac Calder, started flying P40s then went on to Corsairs. He said the difference was amazing, size ,power etc. He also said the best defense in the Corsair was to "unstrap his belts and run around the cockpit", thought that was funny!
"You just had to look at them (The Japanese) and that burst into flames...one squirt and they would blow up. I was very pleased because it saved ammunition". 😁 Sir, you are a legend!
My dad ("Paddy" from N Ireland) flew with the Navy - Fleet Air Arm - for 18 mths off the AC Carrier Victorious in the Pacific during WW2. It was in a Corsair (I believe) that he single handedly pursued and shot down two Zeroes. He was decorated for this in a big ceremony. He thought well of the Corsair👍
Unfortunately many of these British Corsairs were pushed into the sea at the end of the war due to the financial arrangements between governments. The deal with the Americans was that we could use these planes and that any that were destroyed was just acceptable wartime losses ... but any that were still flying and that we kept in the Fleet Air Arm at the end of the war would then have to be paid for! Britain couldn't afford to pay for anything by the end of the war so the decision was made to push them off the end of the carrier deck into the sea ... my stepfather witnessed this happening in the Firth of Clyde in Scotland (he was a Corsair pilot having just completed deck landing training right at the very end of WW2).
Same thing happened in the far east - my Grandfather was on a carrier at the end of the war and witnessed essentially brand new aircraft being dumped into the sea rather than being shipped home.
Read the book "Hap Arnold" by Bill Yenne. At the end of WWII thousands of aircraft were scrapped, not just the F4U Corsairs e.g B-17, B-24, B-29, P-51, P-47 etc. . This pull quote from page 285. "USAAF disposed of 33,600 aircraft, including 10,934 heavy bombers and 8,014 fighters." Yes, whether the British or U.S. Navy there was no further need for many WWII aircraft. Sad but true.
I read the book 'Carrier Pilot', by Norman Hanson when I was younger. It was the book that got me into Corsairs. Well worth a read and on of the best military aviation books from WW2 from any theatre. A beautiful aircraft and deadly in the hands of a good pilot.
Absolutely. Norman was quite old for a pilot, compared to the majority. He said most of the pilots in the Fleet Air Arm, were from new Zealand & Canada. The FAA had a recruitment centre in Auckland which cntributed to them joining the FAA, where as the RAF did not,
I love aircraft, especially the corsair, thank you black,sheep squadron. This and one other video has sparked my interest in the roles played by the allies. I find myself having the typical American attitude regarding how many countries were involved,and their contributions. I enjoy the fact Its the British pilots that figured how to land the corsair on carriers.
A Corsair flew over the market square of the town where I was living when I was 16. Totally unexpected and absolutely wonderful. The sound was fantastic
In the Pacific, the MG over cannon made sense. The Japanese armour was thin and weak on their planes and vehicles. They also caught fire easily without self-sealing systems. My namesake Norman Hanson wrote a good book on using the Corsair in the RN (‘Carrier Pilot’). Recommend it.
Ha! Yeah, I noticed that. Pretty impressive, having bits of your actual engine blown off and still going. What was next - “could have a wing shot away and still do a mission?”
thats a rather impressive running theme with many American aircraft of the time. Corsair, Thunderbolt, Dauntless, Flying Fortress, and many others. The heavy aircraft like bombers its understandable in a way to lose an engine or two and go for a while but single engine craft its quite a bit more impressive.
Absolutely love these vids! Always had a spot for the FAA, mainly when i play il2 1946.. love to see one about the Grummen Marlet. Keep up the fantastic work 👍🏻
My best friend's Dad was a Corsair pilot. He said one of the biggest problems on the earlier Corsairs was tip stalling. Stall strips were added that caused the root of the wing to stall first, allowing aileron control throughout the recovery. The Corsair had poor forward visibility, so the landing pattern was flown as a 180 degree turn. Early in the plane's deployment, before the stall strips, a tip stall on final approach put you in the Pacific, or the fantail of the carrier. Neither was particularly survivable, so carrier use by the US Navy was stopped. For land use, there was no issue. Landing speeds were higher, the nose was lower, and wheel landings were done. The cockpit being far back on the fuselage was a distinct advantage in the event of an engine fire. A slip maneuver would keep the flames away from the pilot. Once airborne, the Corsair was a sweetheart. She was fast, and stable, yet maneuverable. The oil cooler inlets on the wing roots would howl in a dive, which was useful in intimidating ground forces. The P&W R2800 was one the greatest engines of the period, and saw use in many American aircraft. Thanks for posting this video. It's great to hear the opinions of our Allies concerning the 'bent wing bird'! It's great to see the aircraft in RN livery, as well.
Do you know that the US Navy rejected the Corsair because of the stall issue? The British applied the stall strip and rescued the design for naval use.
Remember the Fleet Arm had to cut eight inches off the tip of each wing so they would fit in Royal Navy Carrier hangars when folded. So if you build a plastic version in RN colours remember this.
My brother gave me a small Corsair kit for Xmas. Funny thing is that the numbers are reversed on the box artwork. Some pelican mirror reversed the artwork to make it fit better on the box and didn't correct the orientation of the various numbers.
It also helped manage the uneven stalling caused by the large prop. If flying straight, the plane could fly slow enough that turning left could stall the left wing suddenly. Curving in allowed the pilot to feel the plane approach stall speed and correct. I believe there was a small spoiler added to one of the wings added fairly early to help stop them rolling over at low speeds.
Other planes like the Hellcat and Wildcat made by The Iron Works Grumman, had lots of input from pilots and the company had lots of experience building the rugged planes the Navy needed for carrier landings. The Grumman planes saved lots of tired, wounded pilots with damaged planes and land safely due to their ease of flying and ease of landing. Simple to fly and land is key to a pilot's survival when a tired pilot is landing in adverse conditions. Ease of maintenance is also important for the overworked crews who worked so hard to keep planes in action. Cost per unit also come into the picture.
I use to listen to the ww2 navy flyers and they all said that the Corsair was the best all around Navy fighter, bar none, but it took the Brits to land them on carriers . The Brits figured out that they had to clip the planes wing tips. That changed the stall characteristics enough to help in landing. Plus they developed the idea of a sharp swing in to the flight deck. I loved sitting around the fire listening to their old war stories...
It's my understanding that the clipped wings were a nod to the limited overhead space found in RN carrier hanger decks, and that the improved stall characteristics were an unforeseen (but welcome) side effect.
They clipped the wings so they would fit in the british Carrier hangers. A small triangle was added to the right wing to help with it's nasty stall speed characteristics.
@@myparceltape1169 it's my understanding that engine torque is what caused the left wing to stall first at low speeds. They added the triangle to help make the wings stall equally.
As a child, mes amis, I read the memoirs of a young man who flew one of these aeroplanes in WWII. He Claimed the flight manual said that the glide-characteristics were SO poor, that if the engine stopped, you should bail-out (if high enough) ... OR 'Whistle A Tune and Kiss Your Ass Goodbye '! ... Because a 'dead-stick "landing Was very iffy.
Anyone in the UK go to the Fleet air arm museum Yeovilton. Can't fail to be impressed how big these American aircraft are. The Spitfire even the Mustang look like small sports cars in comparison. I would imagine any pilot being shown a Corsair probably thought, oh no i'm becoming a bomber pilot!
I’d love a chronology of when it was that the FAA received the Corsair, then developed it for carrier operations with the FAA and the highlights of its operational record of service with the RN.
saw 2 corsairs wing to wing in a vic of 4 flying at 4 a couple k ft towards chgo lakefront,on either side were an F 14 and 15, granpas ,400 mph,up still with the grandsons,the old boys are badasses still ,,god keep you britl old fellas we know what yas did,
I appreciate the job that you did here. Please consider compiling a video on the RNZAF service of the Corsair. Also possibly one about the wartime aircraft production in Australia by DHA, CAC and the DAP, the Aussie-made versions of the Beaufort and the Beaufighter, or the exploits of Wirraway and Boomerang in ground attack would be keenly watched by many viewers.
Yes, I have been trying to find audio archives for the RNZAF. Not all that much luck so far. I've had more luck with the RAAF operations. And the USMC on Guadalcanal etc. I'll start tackling them in the next few months. Perhaps starting with the Bismarck Sea.
I took great pride in seeing the product of old-fashioned rugged American workmanship in combat action. Tragic that China makes everything today. And thank you Armoured Carriers for a splendid video about a remarkable warplane.
Just before Japan attacked the U.S, they where making everything. They where under cutting everyone as China does today and making junk just as today. Then as today it was the Democrats giving the breaks for japan.
My high school football coach All-American and later Giants running back George "Sonny" Franck was a Marine pilot flying the Corsair off and back onto the deck of an escort carrier late in the war. From its Wiki entry: "At war's end, Corsairs were ashore on Okinawa, combating the kamikaze, and also were flying from fleet and escort carriers. VMF-312, VMF-323, VMF-224, and a handful of others met with success in the Battle of Okinawa.[52]" A bomb or torpedo got loose on the deck, and he volunteered to sit on it while an ordnance officer disarmed it. He was also very maneuverable, like a Corsair. Exasperated at our defense team one night, he strapped on a helmet but not wearing protective pads *dared* the enraged the players to try to tackle him, and then literally ran circles around those kids - *incredible, impossible* moves - making them even angrier than before. 🙂 Back in Juneau Alaska in the 1980s, wealthy young contractor Bruce Lockwood bought one and flew it around for a 4th of July, when a Navy ship with a lot of Marines was docked in town. (Photos up on the Net.) Everyone oohed and ahhed ... loved the whistle ... and then after a few more months sold it, which probably saved it from ditching in the Inside Passage, if it wasn't close enough back to the Airport, if it had had engine trouble.
The RN and the FAA had been so neglected in the pre war years that the Corsair was the only real choice...would one want to go to war in a Fulmar...or in a Corsair?
Fulmar went to war when the F3F was the USN's front-line fleet fighter. Time must be taken into account. It's like comparing the Corsair to the Sabre: They belong to different generations. Of course one wouldn't want to go to war in 1945 with a Fulmar or F3F! In 1940, though, there were no Corsairs!
Believe it or not, the Fulmar has the highest number of kills by any FAA aircraft. Sure it was really the only one out there, in the early years, but the number still stands.
Several of the pilots as well as the initial description repeat a common inaccuracy. The Corsair wasn't relegated to land bases due to problems with landing. US Navy documentation shows that the main problem was Vought's capacity to build the things fast enough. This is why Brewster and Goodyear were brought on to also produce the airplane. It was decided to keep the corsairs on the land bases as opposed to mixing them in with Hellcats on carriers to simplify supply chains.
The problem you have with others accepting your statement is that with the known issues with stalling and bouncing on landing putting restrictions on the Corsair's operations it's easy to accept the standard narrative, just like with the British heavy bombers being limited in wing span to 100ft due to the hanger doors. I accept that the USN wanted to simplify supply lines and to standardise on the more docile Hellcat, but could you give your source for the production issues with Vought? In the case of the British heavy (Stirling) and medium bombers (Manchester and Halifax), as stated in the Air Ministry specifications for them, most maintenance was to be done outside meaning you didn't need hangars. Couple this with the Type C hangars that were introduce in 1936, the same year as the specifications for the Stirling, and Mancester and Halifax were issued, had doors that could open to 120ft. The real reason, as given by Colin Sinnott in his book The Royal Airforce and Aircraft Design 1923-1939, was that the Air Ministry considered larger aircraft too large for a single pilot to control in extreme circumstances. But the hangar door reading is now the accepted orthodoxy.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 I put some US Navy documents on my site a couple of years ago - if you Google search "Corsair Carrier suitability" or "F4U carrier suitability" it should be the top result. One document states that they do not intend to assign any Corsairs to aircraft carriers in August of 43 because the entire allotment is needed for marine squadrons. The simple fact that the Navy brought both Brewster and Goodyear in to produce Corsairs speaks volumes as to Vought's capacity early in the war.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 A well research documentary would require several documented sources. Here is just a small sample. Revealed in the book "Widowmaker" by Tim Hiller-Graves that the U.S. Navy was in fact using the "curved approach" for Corsair carrier landings as early as February 1943. "The first Corsair arrived in February (1943) and an intensive program began with the CO (Lt. Cdr. John "Tommy" Blackburn) playing a leading part. He realized early on when undergoing deck trials with the USS Charger in Chesapeake Bay, that the Corsair had to be handled differently to other aircraft when landing on a carrier. Blackburn reasoned that a standard , straight on approach was unsuited to this aircraft, because of its poor forward visibility when landing. Above all else, a pilot needed to see the deck and the batsman's (LSO) instructions and that could only be achieved with the Corsair using the curved approach from the port side ." Following this there is a letter from Blackburn which goes on to describing Corsair landing issues. Also read the document : Corsair F4U Navy Carrier Landing Issues" The link: facebook.com/groups/570146806355342/files. Other books "Whistling Death" by Boone Guyton. Guyton was the primary test pilot of the Corsair for Chance Vought. "F4U Corsair at War" by Abrams. Read the chapter by Norman Hanson Royal Navy Corsair pilot.
Always fascinating to hear these accounts, though I am disheartened to hear the "Americans didn't like its landing characteristics" fable repeated right off the bat. Carrier qualifications trials from off of USS Wolverine, Core and Charger in 1942 resulted in this statement: "...an excellent carrier type and very easy to land aboard. It is no different than any other airplane." VF-12 was equipped with the Corsair in October of that year, 13 months before the RN received their first Corsairs. The US Navy's choice to use the Hellcat over the Corsair was more down to simplification of logistics and the ease with which even inexperienced pilots could fly the Hellcat, not any particular vice of the Corsair's.
Yes. It is interesting how this tale became part of the pilots' self-narrative, though. That's what I aim to do with these videos - retell their stories, even though they were constrained by their limited perspectives and individual contexts.
@@ArmouredCarriers And I certainly appreciate your efforts. Thank you. Makes me want to finally get around to going through my grandfather's journals and logs. I really wish I'd talked to him a bit more while there was still time. Oh, and just to be clear, it's not my intention to denigrate the accounts of these pilots. We are all limited by our own perspectives and the info available to us. I am fully confident that they are telling the truth as it was known to them.
"The U.S. Navy finally accepted the F4U for shipboard operations in April 1944, after the longer oleo strut was fitted, which eliminated the tendency to bounce." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_F4U_Corsair#Navy_service
I could be wrong but I understand that another issue was that the Hellcat can store in a smaller footprint at comparable performance, thus allowing more planes on the carrier.
Awesome video, always love hearing from our cousins across the Atlantic. I think the closest British made aircraft to the Corsair is the Hawker Sea Fury, another big, heavy carrier plane.
The gull wing design wasn't to provide clearance for the large propeller, the P-47, Hellcat and Bearcat all used the same engine with similar sized props and had telescoping landing gear to provide clearance. The gull wing was to keep the Corsair's landing gear short and strong enough to use as dive brakes. Edit: By the way, I love this channel!
Not sure about that. As said in the video the oleos caused the Corsair to bounce so the undercarriage wasn't short originally. Never heard of undercarriage being used as dive brakes nor the Corsair being used as a dive bomber in the since of anything other than a shallow dive. That said you are correct about the prop not being the reason for the gull wing but I can't remember the reason given for the gull wing.
The Hellcat's wing is under the fuselage, not requiring a longer landing gear. The P-47 was an Army Air Corps plane not expected to do carrier landings.
Something about wings being 90° off the fuselage instead of 180° like a Wildcat was a performance design feature, along with the ( shorter ) landing gear being able to be used in a dive brake setting.... was the primary reason for the bent wing. Other fighters did indeed have large props as well, but that's always the first thing you hear about the Corsair..."they had to bend the wing cause the prop was so big"...and it doesn't tell the full story.
Not just powerful but agile. My stepfather (a British Fleet Arm Corsair pilot) said they trained dogfighting against Spitfires and he said that he could always turn tighter and get inside ... which is the key dogfighting technique to get the advantage and potentially shoot down your opponent.
On February 12, 1943 the US Marines deployed Corsairs on Henderson Field Guadalcanal. Throughout the war, Marines were flying Corsairs from constantly changing forward bases. Nearly all of the 125 official Marine Aces flew Corsairs. Ken Walsh of VMF-124 had 21 kills - 17 of which were Zeros.
For those who would like to read a first hand account of flying the Corsair in combat I highly recommend the book "Carrier Pilot" by Norman Hanson DSC. He tells of how he joined the RN, trained as a pilot & combat in the Pacific. As a BTW, the Corsair apparently was known by some as the "bent winged bastard from Connecticut".
"The U.S. Navy finally accepted the F4U for shipboard operations in April 1944, after the longer oleo strut was fitted, which eliminated the tendency to bounce."
@@stephenh3919 Yeah, like the leftists claimed the "adults" had returned when Biden took office. How has that worked out? The leftists who actually believe in their BS are stupid.
Lieutenant Robert Hampton Gray, VC, DSC, RCNVR of Nelson, BC was one of Canada’s last combat casualties of WWII, shot down in his F4U whilst leading an attack by HMS Formidable on IJN vessels at Onagawa Bay August 9, 1945 - the same day as the atomic bombing of Nagasaki. Gray had served with Fleet Air Arm squadrons in European and African theatres prior to Formidable’s redeployment to the Pacific.
Ive heard somewhere that the Brits raised the seat in order to make it easier for pilots to see, later versions of corsairs had this little improvement in them
Actually, the first single-seat fighter to exceed 400 mph in level flight was the P-38 Lightning. Perhaps he meant the first single-engine fighter to exceed 400 mph?
That the US Navy, rejected the Corsair was a lucky stroke of luck for us Brits.The Fleet Air Arm had been formed in 1938, when naval air support was taken back again from the RAF.(Made no sence that they thought they could provide it, from shore staions) This meant that they had no modern aircraft for ship board use, The wanted the Spitfire, which was modified for them, but was not really strong enough for the rough and tumble of carrier operations, the undercarriage being weak, plus when catching the arrester wire, it yanked the nose down, cousing the prop to break or even damaging the engine mounts. However, the Ensign Eliminator, Bent Wing Bastard, plus other names it gained, needed taming for carrier use. Step forward the greatest pilot of all time, Eric Winkle Brown, who tamed the beast for carrier work. He worked on the curved left wing down approach, recommended the softening of the oleo rebound problem on the undercarriage and the adding of the small spoiler outboard of the guns, on the starboard wing to counteract the stall occouring first on the low wing, on the approach, raising the tailwheel assembly as well. All these mods made it more easy to live with. Worth mentioning that Winkle Brown, performed more than 2,400 deck landings, in his career, which no other pilot has got near. One tried but lost his nerve after 1,500.😲😲
@@cvr527 Exactly. The Hellcat was more than capable of handling anything the Japanese could throw at it. Even after the problems with the Corsair were sorted out the Hellcat remained the USN's primary fighter for the rest of the war.
@@RandomDudeOne Yes I agree, but the Corsair was in production till 1952, seven years after the war. The reason being it was to be used as a close ground support plane. It saw action in both Korea and Vietnam. It was faster than the Hellcat by the way.
The Hellcat was far easier to fly around the boat, particularly among new pilots fresh from training. But the Corsair, while earning the nickname Ensign Eliminator, had significantly better performance. That's why the Corsair was found on carrier decks into the Korean War. The peacetime Navy, prior to 6/1950, didn't need to rush rookie pilots into combat. The better aircraft survived into the Jet Age.
@@Chilly_Billy Charles Lindbergh flew the Corsair, well here is what I found; Lindbergh carried one 2000 lb. bomb plus a 1000 lb. bomb under each wing probably the heaviest bomb load ever attached to a Corsair! That is half a normal bomb load of a B17. I fully understand a B-17 fully loaded was able to carry such a load for a mission into Germany. It didn't say how far the Corsair carried it, but it wouldn't have been very far. It was a rugged plane no doubt, and top speed was 50 mph faster than the Hellcat.
What a wonderful historical piece about this plane. There are loads of American documentaries, but I have never seen one of British pilots. Rare markings and different colored planes for modellers. What strikes the most is, that man make a machine run effective. Well trained and unspoiled Brits appreciated. Thanks a lot for this rare footage! Extremely appreciated! 👏👏👏
Love the concept of actual pilots/users commentating. Far better than a person reading a script. Well done.
Love this. First hand account: "Typical American, overbuilt". And typical Brits. "We can sort this out with a few changes." Also enjoyed the note that the airframes were built by GM/Frigidaire. Ah, the good old days when you could buy a fridge that could survive landing on an armored deck without spilling the milk.
Allied cooperation... the P-51 Mustang wouldn’t have been a great fighter without the British Rolls-Royce Merlin engine. The Corsair only became a great naval fighter only after the Fleet Air Arm solved the carrier landing issues.
@@Idahoguy10157 Don't forget the P-51 was one of the greatest gun platforms for a fighter plane. And lest not forget how many bomber crews were saved by the escorting 51s up to the 17 tens start of their bombing runs. Many a crew of B17s were saved just before their bombing runs. During the bomb runs the P-51s would look for targets of opportunity like trains, planes on the ground and factories. I got to fly back seat in a 51 back in the 70s for $200 !!! Shortly after that I took flying lessons.
John Quimby, did you know that 1911 45 acp pistol some were manufactured by the Singer sewing machine company
@@butchyshoe P-47s would have actually had the range to escort B-17s had Hap Arnold and his "Bomber Mafia" not banned the use of drop tanks for pursuit fighters early on. Hap Arnold was so convinced bombers could outrun fighters and didn't need escorts, he actively handicapped escort fighters. At the time of the Schweinfurt-Regensburg mission, a 200 gal centerline tank for the P-47 already existed as did the hardpoint to mount it. It would have comfortably given the P-47 the combat radius to escort on that mission. Lives were needlessly lost just for the sake of trying to prove their bomber doctrine.
In order to cover up their criminal short-sightedness and avoid the fallout that would follow, the Eighth Air Force published reports after the war that selectively choose correct but out of context facts. Saying that only the arrival of the P-51 gave them the escort fighter they needed. But comparing a late 1944 Mustang with a 1943 Thunderbolt with smaller tanks than later models.
The Eighth Air Force lied by omission to cover their asses and the cover story was so convincing, people still believe it to this day.
To be honest, the first thing I look for when choosing a new fridge is its ability to survive multiple deck landings.
Seeing the Brits embrace the Corsair warms me deep down inside. Plus the Brit camo and roundels.
My grandad was a Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm rigger at HMS Garuda (repair yard) in India during the war. He also spent some time on them in Sri Lanka (Ceylon as it was called then).
He loved them. He worked on Wildcats (he never called them Martlet), Seafires and did his trade training at Garston on Swordfish but the Corsairs were the ones he talked most about.
My dad was an aviation machinists mate in the USN. Like your granddad, the Corsair was his favorite, and he touched nearly all USN and USMC carrier aircraft. The plane he disliked most? The F2A Brewster Buffalo, which he worked over at Norfolk Naval Air Station in 1941. "A hunk 'a junk. We couldn't keep those Buffalos in the air".
@@redskindan78 Interesting about the Brewster. The one my grandad complained about was the Seafire. It was adapted and not designed for naval operations and even with the modifications they took a heavy pounding which could make them a nightmare to keep in top shape.
Good to know the Brits liked them, honor and gratitude to those who served, thank you .
Why haven't I seen this before???? Absolutely incredible documentary from the British perspective on the F4U Corsair!!!! Thanks for posting!!!!
Glad you liked it. Spread the word :)
I never knew you Brits had the Corsair. I'm a US Marine's son (fighter pilot, but the F-4 Phantom II), so I love this plane. I'm glad you could tame her and love her too!
The Royal Navy were desperate for a modern naval fighter. None of the British naval fighters were very good, and planes like the spitfire were never designed to absorb heavy landings on a carrier deck, so they couldn’t really use that . Even the naval version of the spitfire, the seafire, spent more time being wrecked on deck landings than it did shooting down enemy aircraft. The RN desperately needed a fighter designed specifically as a carrier fighter from the word go, which is why they bought the Corsair.
@@greva2904 The Corsair had much better range as well.
It'll blow your mind to discover the French had them as well and used them from carriers. Saw extensive combat in the late 40s into the 50s. So the Viet Minh were on the receiving end of the Corsairs for a few years.
@@earthenjadis8199 The US wanted Corsairs to be brought back out of mothballs for use as ground attack aircraft in Korea. But there were hardly any left, they’d all been scrapped. So they had to use mustangs instead, which were far from ideal as their water cooled merlin engines were much more susceptible to damage from AA. They lost a lot of mustangs that way, from damage Corsairs and Thunderbolts would have survived.
With a name like Burnside, I'm pretty sure YOU are British too...
Its a very British name.
An absolute beast of a machine. One of my favourites. The Fleet Air Arm clipped the wings and used a curved approach on landing.
Always liked the look of the Corsair. It just looks mean.
These gentlemen are completely charming. To have earned their approval was such an honor for Chance-Vought.
My father was on H.M.S FORMIDABLE and maintained these aircraft .God Bless You Dad....
I’ve been looking for interviews with Royal Navy pilots and their thoughts on the Corsair. This was great, thanks for posting it!!
The RN helped development of the Corsair in the carrier role when the USN had taken a pass... They tuned the landing gear to eliminate a the bounce, and developed the circling approach to work around the visibility isues for having the cockpit so far back... Great airplane, fantastic fighter. But like all new introductions into operations had teething problems and the Brits did a fantastic job of working through them to help the Corsair meet its intended design goals. That said, for the USN the Hellcat made more sense... Cheaper, simpler to maintain, easier to fly by average pilots who could now hold their own against anything the Japanese throw at them also given the advantage of newer tactics the plane early begin to come into its own at that point
me too!!!
These are hard times for Great Britain and the US. I was pleased and proud to hear the British veterans speak highly of the Corsair and America. Thank you all !!!
We are going to have to fight.
@@halojump123 We are sadly, or we'll both be gone.
Awesome video the Royal Navy's participation in the latter stages of the Pacific war is hardly covered but great job here on this video can't wait for part 2
The forgotten army👌
It's so weird seeing the F-4U Corsair painted that way. I'm so used to seeing it in (mostly) blue with a big white star.
It was the British that figured out aircraft carriers with an angled deck could launch and retrieve aircraft at the same time (also something with mirrors for the landing pilots too).
Ed McMahon from the Tonight Show flew these planes and was an instructor during WW 2 as a Marine.
Thank you for the refresher that made me go...Hey...I knew that!!! It's one of those things I knew, and until you made your comment, I didn't remember I knew it. More important...It's one of those things I do not want to forget!!!
Then, there is always the Original Black Sheep, Greg "Pappy" Boyington. I bring him up because I had the honor and privilege of not only meeting him, but having photos taken with him, as well as several of his autographed Lithos, so, I think that covers why I had to bring him up. I personal, while brief, connection.
I have another story about the F4U Corsair, and one of the Marines that became an Ace flying it, and also restored one and I saw him flying it in simulated battle conditions in the early 80's, but I digress. Just really great memories.
Thank you again...
Ed McMahon then flew Unarmed Artillery Spotter Planes during the Korean War, now that takes some nerve!
"6 planes were delivered,and 6 women got out of them. There were no more complaints after that" the glorious ferry pilots!
One of my aunts worked as ground crew at the factory
@John Munro
I've read that remark about the Beaufighter as well although it was only the one aircraft delivery. Also that the lack of complaints was due to shame.
Did they land them on the carrier?
The Air Transport Auxiliary
www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/online-exhibitions/air-transport-auxiliary/ata-expansion/
@Chrris Smith You think women today couldn't do the same? That's what sexism is all about.
Great interviews,thanks. Got to talk with Marine F4U & US Navy Aces when put on air combat symposiums in 90’s & early 2000’s . They liked it in combat but until landing gear modified it bounced on deck . Also needed spoiler on wing to control snap stalls. British had to crop wing tips to fit their smaller carriers hangers but this cured stall problem.
Spoke with a WWII USMC pilot who flew Corsairs off Guadalcanal. Absolute legend!
This is by far the best assemblage of archival footage I've seen about this plane.
As he was used to being the fastest plane in the sky my stepfather was amazed when his Corsair was buzzed by a Gloster Meteor that then disappeared like nothing he had ever seen before! Many people don't realise that our first jet fighter was active during the last year of the war!
Most people don’t realise the Meteor was operational from mid 1943 (and was 10% faster than the Me262).
The American P-80 Shooting Star was operated in Europe from 1944.
The Meteor F.1 and F.3 (early) was powered by Welland jet engines, and had a top speed lower than wartime F4U Corsairs. (Around 415 mph in level flight.)
Allan, I don’t know where you read that Meteors were faster than Me-262’s, but contemporaneous models were definitely not close to the Swallow in terms of top speed in level flight. I suspect they’re comparing the Meteor F.8, operational in the early 1950’s.
The “proper” WW2 Meteor version to compare to 262’s is the F.3 w/2,000 lb thrust Derwent I engines, first full squadron of which was activated on the continent in March, 1945. They had a top speed in the mid-400’s, about 100mph slower than Swallows.
@@allangibson8494so not true! Meteor was NOT faster than the ME262! 480mph vs 540mph
@@tettehpecku4393 Me262 - 490kt 560mph
Gloster Derwent Meteor - 520kt 606mph
The Derwent Meteor had twice the thrust of the Me262 but was structurally limited as to maximum Mach number (as was the Me262).
As for swept wings - the DC-3 has more wing sweep than the Me-262…
The Meteor exceeded the Me262’s performance in every way in late 1944.
Fascinating video and commentary. Looking forward already to the next part. Great work Jamie and AI.
The last Canadian who won the Victoria Cross, Lt. Robert Gray of British Columbia, did so in a Corsair. Here's a citation from Wikipedia about him. "On August 9, 1945, at Onagawa Bay, Miyagi Prefecture, Japan, Lieutenant Gray (flying a Vought F4U Corsair) led an attack on a group of Japanese naval vessels, sinking the Etorofu-class escort ship Amakusa before his plane crashed into the bay."
I found some audio from a pilot who flew with him on that strike. I may do a short video based on that.
Third time I have watched this one. I was fortunate to know a US Corsair pilot when I was growing up. He flew a number of aircraft in his career, and the Corsair was his absolute favorite.
There is a reason it was the only WWII fighter still in production in 1951...
Ammo boxes for quick change rather than belts.....nice practical touch👌
So they don't open the boxes and lay the belts inside the wing magazines?
A Thunderbolt setup video shows that technique.
The Spitfires had the same system for the machine guns.
My father flew the Corsair with the RNZAF (16 and 22 squadrons) as a land based fixed wing version. The first corsairs NZ purchased were folding wing models that were used for training. On takeoff my father noticed one of the ‘wing bolts had popped’, he put it on a gentle circuit and got back on the ground safely. They had already had one kill the pilot after a wing folded in flight!
The last RNZAF Corsair - made by Goodyear - is based at Hood Aerodrome, Masterton, in New Zealand and flies at the airshows around the country. At the Classic Fighters Omaka air shows it is parked in the hangar for the night and, before it is towed outside for the start of the day's activities, we, the fans, are allowed to get up close and personal with it, and all the other aircraft in the hangar - things like P40s, a P51 and a couple of Mark IX Spitfires, but I digress. The first impression of the Corsair is how BIG it is when sitting beside the afore-mentioned aircraft. America had access to impressive radial engines and were able to design equally impressive aircraft to make use of all that power.
The Corsair is painted in US markings and colour scheme and, at on the of the Classic Fighters Omaka airshows that I attended, the announcer, when asked why it was not in RNZAF markings and colour, said it would cost around NZ$15,000 to make the change.
@@MarsFKA There is one lost in the hills behind Westport, lost heading to Wigram in 1944, it has never been found despite numerous searches. The pilot was Brian Barstow.
Another model documentary from this excellent site. Good to hear from Ronald Hay RM and his comrades, pity not to have an interview with Eric Brown who wrote about the Corsair in ‘Wings of the Navy’. Thank you once again!
Ordering 200 fighter aircraft off your own back with no permission...absolute legend.
Yeah, innit! I thought that, too. Then the interviewer says ‘well, how did you know that’s true?”
“ ‘Cos I was with him when he did it!”
Quality!:)
Bat, not back.
@@brianjones3191 The phrase off your own back is often used to refer to something done by using one's own initiative, but in origin it's a cricketing idiom, off your own bat, but both phrases are considered correct.
@@RedMac63 "Back" may one day become accepted by dictionaries, because it is very often mistakenly and incorrectly used.
Many incorrect words eventually become accepted through continual use.
I expect this one will join them.
But for now, it is still incorrect.
Quite!
I'm no pilot...having only ridden in a small Cessna "puddle jumper" when I was four years old in the mountains of West Virginia, and too short to see anything unless the pilot banked the plane in a turn enough so that I could see the ground lol. But, I've always had a love for aircraft and a huge respect for those men and women who fly them. What I've always heard verbatim from pilots all over the world is that in combat, you fly your craft right at the ragged edge of uncontrollability. And, almost every pilot who flew the Corsair enjoyed the way it performed in the air. But, it took some ballsy Limeys to show everybody else how to land em correctly on aircraft carriers. Thank God for them for achieving that. Now, at fifty-five and retired, I get to delve back into being the history buff that I enjoyed being so much as a kid. Anyway, I will always carry a great admiration towards those who fly, and also a great respect. I'll keep a good thought for you all. Perhaps, if it's "in the cards," I'll have the opportunity to fly once before my time here on earth is done. My heartfelt thanks to all for your service, and how you've shaped history.
A friend of mine flew one in Korea. He loved it! They would fly low while the jets flew higher above them. On one mission into enemy territory, he heard the order to break left. Instinctively, he did and he saw MIG tracers shoot by his canopy. Funny thing is, none of the other pilots in his flight said anything.
I always underestimate just how *huge* these planes are. I keep thinking of those little single-engine Cessna 172s I see at the local airport, so I see a single-engine fighter and just mentally lump it in the same category. Then 2:08 rolls around and I'm reminded just how enormous they are.
IIRC, the engine was also used in the B-29 Super-Fort. That's real size and power for single seater.
@@kirbyculp3449 The Pratt&Whitney R2800 was famously used in several of the best twin-engine bombers and transports, but not in any 4-engine bombers at all, nor even any 4-engine transports until one French design [ *Edit* ~Stupidly left out the definitive 4-engine application of the R-2800 : The indispensable & immortal Douglas DC-6! I knew I was forgetting something...] after the war. The larger/heavier, more powerful (and initially much more troublesome & unreliable) Wright R-3350 was the engine whose ongoing development was prioritized as the basis of the B-29 program, and whose poorly-configured installation remained the unresolved "Achilles Heel" of that airplane. The R-3350 never really fulfilled its potential until post-war, in the Lockheed Constellation airliner, whose development during the war had been delayed precisely because of all the troubles the engine had in the B-29.
@@boatrat So which engine was fitted to the Douglas Sky Raider ?
@@markfryer9880 The Wright 3350 was eminently successful in both the Skyraider and the Constellation, but the Connie came earlier. As such, the Connie was the pertinent point re. delays/problems with the 3350 development, which was the issue at stake in the B-29 comment I was answering. Connie was technically accepted by the military earlier in the war (than the Skyraider's delivery in late '45), although the Douglas C-54 had largely usurped that role by the time the Lockheed was ready to go.
The 109s, Spits, &
51s are about the same size as the c-172 or to keep with a tail dragger, a c-170. Check wing span, length, & height. Think about that. Then you realize why the warbirds could so easily torque roll if power was applied too rapidly. Sttod beside all at KSMO one day. Was amazed at the height of the vertical stab height of all 3 while they were sitting on the ramp. Tiny aircraft. The radial powered birds were bigger. Couldn’t believe the size of the P-47 in comparison.
My first instructor at military flight school, mid 60's, was a WW2 Navy Corsair aviator . wonderful fellow.
Extraordinary video and the info provided by the same pilots who manned these beasts is absolutely fantastic. Incidentally, I never saw a Corsair at Duxford Air Museum back in 1989. Hope to return to England once this nasty virus is finally contained.
Yeah, I saw it there years back. The best way to describe the fuselage is basically a massive long engine with a cockpit and tail strapped to the back of it!!! Great to hear our lads made good use of it :)
I think theres one in the Fleet air arm museum.
A friend of my mothers flew with the RNZAF in WW2 , His name was Mac Calder, started flying P40s then went on to Corsairs. He said the difference was amazing, size ,power etc. He also said the best defense in the Corsair was to "unstrap his belts and run around the cockpit", thought that was funny!
There is nothing like hearing from the men that were there.
Straight from the hourses mouth.
Very true. They had their necks on the line and knew the score.
It really is great. Much more interesting, I think, than hearing from contemporary sources.
To sit down and listen to the stories that they could tell.
I love the praise that was given, the criticism, and the occasional “dig”. Great interviews!
"You just had to look at them (The Japanese) and that burst into flames...one squirt and they would blow up. I was very pleased because it saved ammunition". 😁 Sir, you are a legend!
DOUBLE G ................Brits doing a tidy job of it ????????
My dad ("Paddy" from N Ireland) flew with the Navy - Fleet Air Arm - for 18 mths off the AC Carrier Victorious in the Pacific during WW2. It was in a Corsair (I believe) that he single handedly pursued and shot down two Zeroes. He was decorated for this in a big ceremony. He thought well of the Corsair👍
Unfortunately many of these British Corsairs were pushed into the sea at the end of the war due to the financial arrangements between governments. The deal with the Americans was that we could use these planes and that any that were destroyed was just acceptable wartime losses ... but any that were still flying and that we kept in the Fleet Air Arm at the end of the war would then have to be paid for! Britain couldn't afford to pay for anything by the end of the war so the decision was made to push them off the end of the carrier deck into the sea ... my stepfather witnessed this happening in the Firth of Clyde in Scotland (he was a Corsair pilot having just completed deck landing training right at the very end of WW2).
Same thing happened in the far east - my Grandfather was on a carrier at the end of the war and witnessed essentially brand new aircraft being dumped into the sea rather than being shipped home.
I’d imagine they wouldn’t need them by then anyway. Marginally obsolete except as ground support and a severe lack of opponents. :)
Read the book "Hap Arnold" by Bill Yenne. At the end of WWII thousands of aircraft were scrapped, not just the F4U Corsairs e.g B-17, B-24, B-29, P-51, P-47 etc. . This pull quote from page 285. "USAAF disposed of 33,600 aircraft, including 10,934 heavy bombers and 8,014 fighters." Yes, whether the British or U.S. Navy there was no further need for many WWII aircraft. Sad but true.
Great content, Armored Carriers! Thanks for posting.
I read the book 'Carrier Pilot', by Norman Hanson when I was younger. It was the book that got me into Corsairs. Well worth a read and on of the best military aviation books from WW2 from any theatre. A beautiful aircraft and deadly in the hands of a good pilot.
Absolutely. Norman was quite old for a pilot, compared to the majority. He said most of the pilots in the Fleet Air Arm, were from new Zealand & Canada. The FAA had a recruitment centre in Auckland which cntributed to them joining the FAA, where as the RAF did not,
I love aircraft, especially the corsair, thank you black,sheep squadron. This and one other video has sparked my interest in the roles played by the allies. I find myself having the typical American attitude regarding how many countries were involved,and their contributions. I enjoy the fact Its the British pilots that figured how to land the corsair on carriers.
Great job on the actual footage and the actual pilots. Thank you 🙏
A Corsair flew over the market square of the town where I was living when I was 16. Totally unexpected and absolutely wonderful. The sound was fantastic
The P-38 Lightning was the first single seat fighter to fly over 400mph. The Corsair was the first single engine fighter to reach that mark.
Does a Mosquito with only the pilot in it not count? Two man bomber, +400mph late 1941, before the USA joined the war.
@@andrewbarton8525 P-38 is a pre-war aircraft - when in development - it flew over 400mph in Jan-Feb 1939.
.
The claim was for a single engined, single seater
@@alecblunden8615 at 2:31 "single seat fighter" was all that was stated, no mention of single engine.
@@5stardave It is certainly mentioned elsewgere
Incredible piece of documented history ..... simply amazing
In the Pacific, the MG over cannon made sense. The Japanese armour was thin and weak on their planes and vehicles. They also caught fire easily without self-sealing systems.
My namesake Norman Hanson wrote a good book on using the Corsair in the RN (‘Carrier Pilot’). Recommend it.
4:05 "wonderful resistance to having cylinders shot-away".
Ha! Yeah, I noticed that. Pretty impressive, having bits of your actual engine blown off and still going. What was next - “could have a wing shot away and still do a mission?”
@@geordiedog1749 actually happened.
thats a rather impressive running theme with many American aircraft of the time. Corsair, Thunderbolt, Dauntless, Flying Fortress, and many others. The heavy aircraft like bombers its understandable in a way to lose an engine or two and go for a while but single engine craft its quite a bit more impressive.
The joys of a radial engine
@@radioguy1620 holy hell. No wonder they worked so hard to stuff the damn things into the ass of a tank.
My father was a Hellcat pilot. He said the F4U was called the ensign eliminator because of all of the crashes.
12:38
"Six Planes were delivered and six women got out of them..... no more grumbling"
What a great story....
Great vid. So much quality footage and the voice overs from pilots is fantastic.
Absolutely love these vids! Always had a spot for the FAA, mainly when i play il2 1946.. love to see one about the Grummen Marlet. Keep up the fantastic work 👍🏻
My best friend's Dad was a Corsair pilot. He said one of the biggest problems on the earlier Corsairs was tip stalling. Stall strips were added that caused the root of the wing to stall first, allowing aileron control throughout the recovery. The Corsair had poor forward visibility, so the landing pattern was flown as a 180 degree turn. Early in the plane's deployment, before the stall strips, a tip stall on final approach put you in the Pacific, or the fantail of the carrier. Neither was particularly survivable, so carrier use by the US Navy was stopped. For land use, there was no issue. Landing speeds were higher, the nose was lower, and wheel landings were done. The cockpit being far back on the fuselage was a distinct advantage in the event of an engine fire. A slip maneuver would keep the flames away from the pilot. Once airborne, the Corsair was a sweetheart. She was fast, and stable, yet maneuverable. The oil cooler inlets on the wing roots would howl in a dive, which was useful in intimidating ground forces. The P&W R2800 was one the greatest engines of the period, and saw use in many American aircraft. Thanks for posting this video. It's great to hear the opinions of our Allies concerning the 'bent wing bird'! It's great to see the aircraft in RN livery, as well.
Do you know that the US Navy rejected the Corsair because of the stall issue? The British applied the stall strip and rescued the design for naval use.
I really love the Corsair. This was a treat, thanks.
Remember the Fleet Arm had to cut eight inches off the tip of each wing so they would fit in Royal Navy Carrier hangars when folded.
So if you build a plastic version in RN colours remember this.
If I cut 8 inches off the Airfix kit there wont be any wing left 🤔
@@MrRugbylane Eight Scale inches, you Pelican!
My brother gave me a small Corsair kit for Xmas. Funny thing is that the numbers are reversed on the box artwork. Some pelican mirror reversed the artwork to make it fit better on the box and didn't correct the orientation of the various numbers.
This is so sweet to watch history and I'm a student pilot, I would love to fly a Corsair today, as a former Navy vet, GO Navy
Might i say some of the video clips are really good quality.
I understand the innovation in RN practise was to approach the carrier in a curving approach so you could actually see the deck
It also helped manage the uneven stalling caused by the large prop. If flying straight, the plane could fly slow enough that turning left could stall the left wing suddenly. Curving in allowed the pilot to feel the plane approach stall speed and correct. I believe there was a small spoiler added to one of the wings added fairly early to help stop them rolling over at low speeds.
@Lindy Last yes they did.
The Spitfire and so the Seafire, also needed a curved approach due to the lack of visibilty over the nose.
These are so well put together! Kudos!
3:30. Not to nitpick, but the F3A was the Brewster produced Corsair which had serious construction issues and did not see combat
I thought that didn't sound right.
Other planes like the Hellcat and Wildcat made by The Iron Works Grumman, had lots of input from pilots and the company had lots of experience building the rugged planes the Navy needed for carrier landings. The Grumman planes saved lots of tired, wounded pilots with damaged planes and land safely due to their ease of flying and ease of landing. Simple to fly and land is key to a pilot's survival when a tired pilot is landing in adverse conditions. Ease of maintenance is also important for the overworked crews who worked so hard to keep planes in action. Cost per unit also come into the picture.
A Delightful Documentary Clip!
Much Great Footage And Commentary!
I use to listen to the ww2 navy flyers and they all said that the Corsair was the best all around Navy fighter, bar none, but it took the Brits to land them on carriers .
The Brits figured out that they had to clip the planes wing tips. That changed the stall characteristics enough to help in landing. Plus they developed the idea of a sharp swing in to the flight deck. I loved sitting around the fire listening to their old war stories...
We, who got to listen, sre lucky.
It's my understanding that the clipped wings were a nod to the limited overhead space found in RN carrier hanger decks, and that the improved stall characteristics were an unforeseen (but welcome) side effect.
They clipped the wings so they would fit in the british Carrier hangers. A small triangle was added to the right wing to help with it's nasty stall speed characteristics.
@@Nathan-pw7do I wonder if the pilots employed the twist from their radial engines.
@@myparceltape1169 it's my understanding that engine torque is what caused the left wing to stall first at low speeds. They added the triangle to help make the wings stall equally.
As a child, mes amis, I read the memoirs of a young man who flew one of these aeroplanes in WWII. He Claimed the flight manual said that the glide-characteristics were SO poor, that if the engine stopped, you should bail-out (if high enough) ... OR 'Whistle A Tune and Kiss Your Ass Goodbye '! ... Because a 'dead-stick "landing Was very iffy.
Anyone in the UK go to the Fleet air arm museum Yeovilton. Can't fail to be impressed how big these American aircraft are. The Spitfire even the Mustang look like small sports cars in comparison. I would imagine any pilot being shown a Corsair probably thought, oh no i'm becoming a bomber pilot!
I’d love a chronology of when it was that the FAA received the Corsair, then developed it for carrier operations with the FAA and the highlights of its operational record of service with the RN.
I'm probably overdue adding such a page to www.armouredcarriers.com
saw 2 corsairs wing to wing in a vic of 4 flying at 4 a couple k ft towards chgo lakefront,on either side were an F 14 and 15, granpas ,400 mph,up still with the grandsons,the old boys are badasses still ,,god keep you britl old fellas we know what yas did,
Great video, THX for sharing!!
I appreciate the job that you did here. Please consider compiling a video on the RNZAF service of the Corsair. Also possibly one about the wartime aircraft production in Australia by DHA, CAC and the DAP, the Aussie-made versions of the Beaufort and the Beaufighter, or the exploits of Wirraway and Boomerang in ground attack would be keenly watched by many viewers.
Yes, I have been trying to find audio archives for the RNZAF. Not all that much luck so far.
I've had more luck with the RAAF operations. And the USMC on Guadalcanal etc.
I'll start tackling them in the next few months. Perhaps starting with the Bismarck Sea.
I took great pride in seeing the product of old-fashioned rugged American workmanship in combat action. Tragic that China makes everything today. And thank you Armoured Carriers for a splendid video about a remarkable warplane.
Just before Japan attacked the U.S, they where making everything. They where under cutting everyone as China does today and making junk just as today. Then as today it was the Democrats giving the breaks for japan.
“Bought it on his own slop chit”. A popular saying in my Royal Navy days ‘67-‘89
Very enjoyable video, well narrated. Thank you for your service. Corsair is a very great plane.
Great production all around! Had to subscribe to such good work. It is our duty to remember.
My high school football coach All-American and later Giants running back George "Sonny" Franck was a Marine pilot flying the Corsair off and back onto the deck of an escort carrier late in the war. From its Wiki entry: "At war's end, Corsairs were ashore on Okinawa, combating the kamikaze, and also were flying from fleet and escort carriers. VMF-312, VMF-323, VMF-224, and a handful of others met with success in the Battle of Okinawa.[52]"
A bomb or torpedo got loose on the deck, and he volunteered to sit on it while an ordnance officer disarmed it.
He was also very maneuverable, like a Corsair. Exasperated at our defense team one night, he strapped on a helmet but not wearing protective pads *dared* the enraged the players to try to tackle him, and then literally ran circles around those kids - *incredible, impossible* moves - making them even angrier than before. 🙂
Back in Juneau Alaska in the 1980s, wealthy young contractor Bruce Lockwood bought one and flew it around for a 4th of July, when a Navy ship with a lot of Marines was docked in town. (Photos up on the Net.) Everyone oohed and ahhed ... loved the whistle ... and then after a few more months sold it, which probably saved it from ditching in the Inside Passage, if it wasn't close enough back to the Airport, if it had had engine trouble.
The RN and the FAA had been so neglected in the pre war years that the Corsair was the only real choice...would one want to go to war in a Fulmar...or in a Corsair?
Fulmar went to war when the F3F was the USN's front-line fleet fighter. Time must be taken into account. It's like comparing the Corsair to the Sabre: They belong to different generations. Of course one wouldn't want to go to war in 1945 with a Fulmar or F3F! In 1940, though, there were no Corsairs!
Believe it or not, the Fulmar has the highest number of kills by any FAA aircraft. Sure it was really the only one out there, in the early years, but the number still stands.
Wonderful doco .. really informative and great to hear the stories of those brave men.
Several of the pilots as well as the initial description repeat a common inaccuracy. The Corsair wasn't relegated to land bases due to problems with landing. US Navy documentation shows that the main problem was Vought's capacity to build the things fast enough. This is why Brewster and Goodyear were brought on to also produce the airplane. It was decided to keep the corsairs on the land bases as opposed to mixing them in with Hellcats on carriers to simplify supply chains.
The problem you have with others accepting your statement is that with the known issues with stalling and bouncing on landing putting restrictions on the Corsair's operations it's easy to accept the standard narrative, just like with the British heavy bombers being limited in wing span to 100ft due to the hanger doors. I accept that the USN wanted to simplify supply lines and to standardise on the more docile Hellcat, but could you give your source for the production issues with Vought?
In the case of the British heavy (Stirling) and medium bombers (Manchester and Halifax), as stated in the Air Ministry specifications for them, most maintenance was to be done outside meaning you didn't need hangars. Couple this with the Type C hangars that were introduce in 1936, the same year as the specifications for the Stirling, and Mancester and Halifax were issued, had doors that could open to 120ft. The real reason, as given by Colin Sinnott in his book The Royal Airforce and Aircraft Design 1923-1939, was that the Air Ministry considered larger aircraft too large for a single pilot to control in extreme circumstances. But the hangar door reading is now the accepted orthodoxy.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 I put some US Navy documents on my site a couple of years ago - if you Google search "Corsair Carrier suitability" or "F4U carrier suitability" it should be the top result. One document states that they do not intend to assign any Corsairs to aircraft carriers in August of 43 because the entire allotment is needed for marine squadrons. The simple fact that the Navy brought both Brewster and Goodyear in to produce Corsairs speaks volumes as to Vought's capacity early in the war.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 A well research documentary would require several documented sources. Here is just a small sample. Revealed in the book "Widowmaker" by Tim Hiller-Graves that the U.S. Navy was in fact using the "curved approach" for Corsair carrier landings as early as February 1943. "The first Corsair arrived in February (1943) and an intensive program began with the CO (Lt. Cdr. John "Tommy" Blackburn) playing a leading part. He realized early on when undergoing deck trials with the USS Charger in Chesapeake Bay, that the Corsair had to be handled differently to other aircraft when landing on a carrier. Blackburn reasoned that a standard , straight on approach was unsuited to this aircraft, because of its poor forward visibility when landing. Above all else, a pilot needed to see the deck and the batsman's (LSO) instructions and that could only be achieved with the Corsair using the curved approach from the port side ." Following this there is a letter from Blackburn which goes on to describing Corsair landing issues. Also read the document : Corsair F4U Navy Carrier Landing Issues" The link: facebook.com/groups/570146806355342/files. Other books "Whistling Death" by Boone Guyton. Guyton was the primary test pilot of the Corsair for Chance Vought. "F4U Corsair at War" by Abrams. Read the chapter by Norman Hanson Royal Navy Corsair pilot.
The break to groove from a 90 allowed them to see the approach and master coming aboard. Well done, Brits.
Always fascinating to hear these accounts, though I am disheartened to hear the "Americans didn't like its landing characteristics" fable repeated right off the bat. Carrier qualifications trials from off of USS Wolverine, Core and Charger in 1942 resulted in this statement: "...an excellent carrier type and very easy to land aboard. It is no different than any other airplane." VF-12 was equipped with the Corsair in October of that year, 13 months before the RN received their first Corsairs.
The US Navy's choice to use the Hellcat over the Corsair was more down to simplification of logistics and the ease with which even inexperienced pilots could fly the Hellcat, not any particular vice of the Corsair's.
Yes. It is interesting how this tale became part of the pilots' self-narrative, though. That's what I aim to do with these videos - retell their stories, even though they were constrained by their limited perspectives and individual contexts.
@@ArmouredCarriers And I certainly appreciate your efforts. Thank you. Makes me want to finally get around to going through my grandfather's journals and logs. I really wish I'd talked to him a bit more while there was still time.
Oh, and just to be clear, it's not my intention to denigrate the accounts of these pilots. We are all limited by our own perspectives and the info available to us. I am fully confident that they are telling the truth as it was known to them.
"The U.S. Navy finally accepted the F4U for shipboard operations in April 1944, after the longer oleo strut was fitted, which eliminated the tendency to bounce."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_F4U_Corsair#Navy_service
I could be wrong but I understand that another issue was that the Hellcat can store in a smaller footprint at comparable performance, thus allowing more planes on the carrier.
Yeah?
So why did the yanks take them all back once they realised that the British COULD land them?
What a great Video. The Corsair is my favorite Airplane,I am surprised I never saw this video before!
Please, also do the angled deck and meatball landing system, developed by the RN
You have reminded me of the catching net.
Steam Catapult? ;-)
Awesome video, always love hearing from our cousins across the Atlantic. I think the closest British made aircraft to the Corsair is the Hawker Sea Fury, another big, heavy carrier plane.
The Navy did use the Corsair early on. VF-17, the Jolly Rodgers.
Back in the day, thumbing ones nose at their Lordships would result in being keelhauled.
The gull wing design wasn't to provide clearance for the large propeller, the P-47, Hellcat and Bearcat all used the same engine with similar sized props and had telescoping landing gear to provide clearance. The gull wing was to keep the Corsair's landing gear short and strong enough to use as dive brakes.
Edit: By the way, I love this channel!
Very interesting I've never heard that before, I never new it was used as a dive bomber.
Not sure about that. As said in the video the oleos caused the Corsair to bounce so the undercarriage wasn't short originally.
Never heard of undercarriage being used as dive brakes nor the Corsair being used as a dive bomber in the since of anything other than a shallow dive.
That said you are correct about the prop not being the reason for the gull wing but I can't remember the reason given for the gull wing.
The Hellcat's wing is under the fuselage, not requiring a longer landing gear. The P-47 was an Army Air Corps plane not expected to do carrier landings.
@@5stardave Look at the Hellcat again.
Something about wings being 90° off the fuselage instead of 180° like a Wildcat was a performance design feature, along with the ( shorter ) landing gear being able to be used in a dive brake setting.... was the primary reason for the bent wing. Other fighters did indeed have large props as well, but that's always the first thing you hear about the Corsair..."they had to bend the wing cause the prop was so big"...and it doesn't tell the full story.
Not just powerful but agile. My stepfather (a British Fleet Arm Corsair pilot) said they trained dogfighting against Spitfires and he said that he could always turn tighter and get inside ... which is the key dogfighting technique to get the advantage and potentially shoot down your opponent.
On February 12, 1943 the US Marines deployed Corsairs on Henderson Field Guadalcanal. Throughout the war, Marines were flying Corsairs from constantly changing forward bases. Nearly all of the 125 official Marine Aces flew Corsairs. Ken Walsh of VMF-124 had 21 kills - 17 of which were Zeros.
It was really a Marine plane more than a Navy plane, until the war's end.
VERY cool documentary, thank you for posting!
For those who would like to read a first hand account of flying the Corsair in combat I highly recommend the book "Carrier Pilot" by Norman Hanson DSC. He tells of how he joined the RN, trained as a pilot & combat in the Pacific. As a BTW, the Corsair apparently was known by some as the "bent winged bastard from Connecticut".
“Carrier Pilot” was a great read.
My grandfather built these planes for 3 years in Akron, Ohio during the war.
Beautiful machines
Great vid for a great aircraft. Thanks for posting.
"The U.S. Navy finally accepted the F4U for shipboard operations in April 1944, after the longer oleo strut was fitted, which eliminated the tendency to bounce."
After the commenwealth should its potential.after 1944 hard to get in Australia and New Zealand.
@@stephenh3919 You need to restrict your comments to topics about which you actually know something and not just know anti-American bit points.
@@stephenh3919 Don't be any more delusional than you have to be.
@@stephenh3919 Yeah, like the leftists claimed the "adults" had returned when Biden took office. How has that worked out? The leftists who actually believe in their BS are stupid.
Nicely done, many thanks.
My favorite WW2 fighter, along with the oft derided Brewster Buffalo that had three times the kill ratio of the 'Hose' ....I like oddball fighters 👌
Wildcat was the boss
like the bell airacobra
Nice video with clear explaining of F-4U characters and how US Naval forces were not accepted its on carrier serving
Lieutenant Robert Hampton Gray, VC, DSC, RCNVR of Nelson, BC was one of Canada’s last combat casualties of WWII, shot down in his F4U whilst leading an attack by HMS Formidable on IJN vessels at Onagawa Bay August 9, 1945 - the same day as the atomic bombing of Nagasaki. Gray had served with Fleet Air Arm squadrons in European and African theatres prior to Formidable’s redeployment to the Pacific.
Ive heard somewhere that the Brits raised the seat in order to make it easier for pilots to see, later versions of corsairs had this little improvement in them
Later versions also had extended tailwheels to improve vision over the nose.
Thinking of some people I know, they might have glued wooden blocks to the pedals. :-)
They clipped the wings a little bit too to help with the bouncy landings.
@@GrahamMilkdrop Clipped wings were so they would fit in the hangar, armored Brit carriers had lower overhead in hangar.
Actually, the first single-seat fighter to exceed 400 mph in level flight was the P-38 Lightning. Perhaps he meant the first single-engine fighter to exceed 400 mph?
That the US Navy, rejected the Corsair was a lucky stroke of luck for us Brits.The Fleet Air Arm had been formed in 1938, when naval air support was taken back again from the RAF.(Made no sence that they thought they could provide it, from shore staions) This meant that they had no modern aircraft for ship board use, The wanted the Spitfire, which was modified for them, but was not really strong enough for the rough and tumble of carrier operations, the undercarriage being weak, plus when catching the arrester wire, it yanked the nose down, cousing the prop to break or even damaging the engine mounts. However, the Ensign Eliminator, Bent Wing Bastard, plus other names it gained, needed taming for carrier use. Step forward the greatest pilot of all time, Eric Winkle Brown, who tamed the beast for carrier work. He worked on the curved left wing down approach, recommended the softening of the oleo rebound problem on the undercarriage and the adding of the small spoiler outboard of the guns, on the starboard wing to counteract the stall occouring first on the low wing, on the approach, raising the tailwheel assembly as well. All these mods made it more easy to live with. Worth mentioning that Winkle Brown, performed more than 2,400 deck landings, in his career, which no other pilot has got near. One tried but lost his nerve after 1,500.😲😲
A shout out to those keen as mustard deck hands !
Americans: We can’t land this damn plane on an aircraft carrier! It’s bouncing all over!
British: Hold my ale!
Not true at all. The USN already had the Hellcat and had no need to push the Corsair into carrier service.
@@cvr527 Exactly. The Hellcat was more than capable of handling anything the Japanese could throw at it. Even after the problems with the Corsair were sorted out the Hellcat remained the USN's primary fighter for the rest of the war.
@@RandomDudeOne Yes I agree, but the Corsair was in production till 1952, seven years after the war. The reason being it was to be used as a close ground support plane. It saw action in both Korea and Vietnam. It was faster than the Hellcat by the way.
The Hellcat was far easier to fly around the boat, particularly among new pilots fresh from training. But the Corsair, while earning the nickname Ensign Eliminator, had significantly better performance. That's why the Corsair was found on carrier decks into the Korean War. The peacetime Navy, prior to 6/1950, didn't need to rush rookie pilots into combat. The better aircraft survived into the Jet Age.
@@Chilly_Billy Charles Lindbergh flew the Corsair, well here is what I found; Lindbergh carried one 2000 lb. bomb plus a 1000 lb. bomb under each wing probably the heaviest bomb load ever attached to a Corsair! That is half a normal bomb load of a B17. I fully understand a B-17 fully loaded was able to carry such a load for a mission into Germany. It didn't say how far the Corsair carried it, but it wouldn't have been very far. It was a rugged plane no doubt, and top speed was 50 mph faster than the Hellcat.