MHO Home   Forum Home   Help   Register   Login
 
 
Welcome to MilitaryHistoryOnline.com.
You are not signed in.
The current time is: 1/16/2017 10:03:45 PM
 (1946-1999) Other 20th Century Battles    
AuthorMessage
John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 30
E-5 Sergeant
Posts: 182

Corsair
Posted on: 1/5/2016 3:27:12 AM
Not sure where this belongs but I found it in a book on the early stages of the Korean War so. The book claims that at least some of the Corsairs of the Marine Air Wing attached to the Provisional Marine Brigade during the battles of the Puson Perimeter were equipped with 20mm cannons. Can anybody tell me what model and when production of these started?
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


anemone
DONCASTER S. YORKS, UK
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 4758
http:// 94.175.43.226
Re: Corsair
Posted on: 1/5/2016 7:24:39 AM
John-This is the only P51 that I can find that was armed with 4 X 20mm cannons

The next evolution of this aircraft was designated Mustang Mk IA. Due to the recently signed Lend Lease Act the U.S. Army was able to place an order for 150 more Mustangs on behalf of the British.

These aircraft were equipped with Four 20mm Hispano Mk.II cannons and were mounted in the wings. Only 93 of the New Mustang made it to the RAF. The U.S. Army pulled 55 for themselves and they immediately saw service. Two were kept by North American Aviation for internal use.

The retained P51's may have been mothballed and re engingined for ground attack work in Korea; but can find no mention of these a/c with USMC Air Wing.

My regards
Jim
---------------
Pro Patria Saepe Pro Rege Semper

MikeMeech
UK
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 232

Re: Corsair
Posted on: 1/5/2016 9:33:21 AM

Quote:
Not sure where this belongs but I found it in a book on the early stages of the Korean War so. The book claims that at least some of the Corsairs of the Marine Air Wing attached to the Provisional Marine Brigade during the battles of the Puson Perimeter were equipped with 20mm cannons. Can anybody tell me what model and when production of these started?
--John R. Price


Hi

Reference the Vought Corsairs used by the USMC in Korea, Swanborough and Bowers 'United States Navy Aircraft since 1911', Putnam 1990 print, has the following:

"In 1946 Vought produced a new Corsair variant, the XF4U-5, by fitting a 2,300 hp two-stage R-3800-32W engine and four 20-mm wing guns in an F4U-4. To meet immediate requirements for a carrier-based fighter-bomber and night fighter, the Navy purchased 223 F4U-5s, 315 F4U-5Ns and -5NLs and 30 F4U-5Ps during 1947 and 1948. Then came the low altitude XF4U-6 with a single-stage R-2800-83W engine, additional armour protection and increased underwing load-carrying ability. Re-designated AU-1, this type went into production for use by Marine squadrons operating in Korea, 111 being built."

So the USMC Corsairs you mentioned were optimised for ground attack missions and slightly more modified than just the 20-mm cannon.

I hope that helps.

Mike

Michigan Dave
Muskegon, Michigan, MI, USA
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 1976

Re: Corsair
Posted on: 1/5/2016 11:14:27 AM
In WWII didn't Pappy Boynton, & the Black Sheep Squadron, fly Corsairs?
---------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 30
E-5 Sergeant
Posts: 182

Re: Corsair
Posted on: 1/5/2016 6:31:25 PM
Jim,

Two different planes.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 30
E-5 Sergeant
Posts: 182

Re: Corsair
Posted on: 1/5/2016 6:34:29 PM
Mike,

Thanks! I was wondering if given the ground attack role they had played in WWII if the modification had come in 44/45.

Also I should correct myself in was a Marine Air Group attached to the Provisional Marine Brigade.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 30
E-5 Sergeant
Posts: 182

Re: Corsair
Posted on: 1/5/2016 6:37:39 PM
Dave,

Yes a lot of Marine sqd flew the Corsair. Most of them land based if I'm not mistaken. It had a problem with the landing gear during Navy carrier trials.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


MikeMeech
UK
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 232

Re: Corsair
Posted on: 1/6/2016 4:21:49 AM

Quote:
Dave,

Yes a lot of Marine sqd flew the Corsair. Most of them land based if I'm not mistaken. It had a problem with the landing gear during Navy carrier trials.
--John R. Price


Hi

Yes the US Navy did have some problems and only started shipboard operations with the Corsair 9 months after the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm!

Mike

George
Haliburton, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 3930

Re: Corsair
Posted on: 1/6/2016 7:17:23 AM
What did the Fleet Air Arm do to accommodate the Corsairs?

George

MikeMeech
UK
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 232

Re: Corsair
Posted on: 1/6/2016 10:15:00 AM

Quote:
What did the Fleet Air Arm do to accommodate the Corsairs?

George
--George


Hi

Several modifications were made including clipping 16 inches off the wingtips so they would fit in the smaller hangers of UK carriers and fit a bulged front hood so the pilot could raise his seat to get a better view forward over the long nose for landing etc.

The first operational carrier sorties were undertaken by 1834 Sqn. from HMS Victorious in an operation against the Tirpitz 3rd April 1944. That month the USN had some successful trials from USS Gambier Bay, performed by VF-301, so the Corsair was finally cleared for carrier use by the USN. I presume the USN had noticed the FAA was operating the type already from aircraft carriers.

Mike

OpanaPointer
St. Louis, MO, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 283

Re: Corsair
Posted on: 1/6/2016 1:56:53 PM
"My Conversations with a WW-II Corsair Fighter Pilot - His Story Through the Decades" by Kelle Metz (Author)

"Whistling Death: The Test Pilot's Story of the F4U Corsair" by Boone T. Guyton

"Vought F4U-4 Corsair Pilot's Flight Operating Instructions" by United States Navy (Creator)

Available on Amazon.

MikeMeech
UK
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 232

Re: Corsair
Posted on: 1/6/2016 3:50:56 PM

Quote:

Quote:
What did the Fleet Air Arm do to accommodate the Corsairs?

George
--George


Hi

Several modifications were made including clipping 16 inches off the wingtips so they would fit in the smaller hangers of UK carriers and fit a bulged front hood so the pilot could raise his seat to get a better view forward over the long nose for landing etc.

The first operational carrier sorties were undertaken by 1834 Sqn. from HMS Victorious in an operation against the Tirpitz 3rd April 1944. That month the USN had some successful trials from USS Gambier Bay, performed by VF-301, so the Corsair was finally cleared for carrier use by the USN. I presume the USN had noticed the FAA was operating the type already from aircraft carriers.

Mike
--MikeMeech


Hi

Further to the above, Capt. Eric Brown gives a good account of the Corsair's vices for carrier operations in his 'Wings of the Navy', he also mentions it appeared to be designed for 'tall pilots'. He believed that the FAA's ready acceptance of the Corsair was "due to exigencies of the times". Eric Brown also flew the AU-1 version post war and that too had problems for carrier operations. He states that the Corsair: "...was operationally successful in spite of itself."

Mike

James W.
Ballina, Australia
top 20
E-7 Sgt First Class
Posts: 363

Re: Corsair
Posted on: 5/24/2016 3:19:45 AM
Jim, the USAF used WW II war-surplus F-51D/Ks in Korea, as piston-engine counterparts to the USN/USMC Corsairs, (albeit the Corsair remained in production).
The RAAF/SAAF also operated Mustangs there too, as did the ROK air arm.

The USAF also had a small number of later model F-51H & F-82 Twin-Mustangs, but largely kept them back, mainly for long-range SAC duties.
The USAF had concentrated on turbo-jet aircraft post-war, but found the early types lacking in range/endurance compared to the F-51.

Overall, the F-51 did similar close support & supply interdiction missions as the Corsair, & they both had similar loss rates,
which tends to bely the usual assumption of radial powered, aircraft carrier capable aircraft - as being 'more rugged' (effective) - in this role..

Widespread use of air-dropped napalm as an effective, if vicious anti-tank weapon was a feature of such ops in Korea.






brian grafton
Victoria, BC, Canada
top 10
E-9 Sergeant Major
Moderator


Posts: 847

Re: Corsair
Posted on: 5/24/2016 7:34:28 PM

Quote:
He believed that the FAA's ready acceptance of the Corsair was "due to exigencies of the times".

Oh Mike! That is such a classic line! Just so bloody British and from such a good school! Thank you.

Isn't "exigencies of the times" short-hand for "we weren't building anything to fill the role"?

I'm not a RN fan, I will admit, so my comment may be unkind (or dead wrong). But it seems to me that FAA, while it had wonderful, gutsy pilots, never seemed to have great a/c. Sure, later in the war they flew modified Hurricanes off cruiser catapults, and modified the Spitfire for carrier service. But many of the RN a/c were only viable because of the extraordinary bravery of their crew. Who, for heaven's sake, would choose to man a Stringbag?


Quote:
[T]he F-51 did similar close support & supply interdiction missions as the Corsair, & they both had similar loss rates, which tends to bely the usual assumption of radial powered, aircraft carrier capable aircraft - as being 'more rugged' (effective) - in this role.

James, I'm assuming you're talking about the P-51 here, just to maintain clarity.

I had thought there was a different motivation for the use of radials over more standard engine layouts (i.e., Merlins, Packards, Napiers, etc.). While "more rugged" seems to have meant "less likely to break when landing on a carrier", I understand it may also have been code for "radials are much easier to repair than Vees or Aitches". I may have this entirely wrong, but I seem to remember this was an argument behind the prominence of radials throughout US air forces in WW2.

Any truth in that, from what you know?

Cheers
Brian G
---------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly.

"The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.

James W.
Ballina, Australia
top 20
E-7 Sgt First Class
Posts: 363

Re: Corsair
Posted on: 5/24/2016 11:12:10 PM
Brian, yes F-51 was previously P-51, the newly independent USAF re-titled its fighters from P=Pursuit to F=Fighter, as the USN/USMC already did..

& 'more rugged' airfame-wise for carrier ops, sure, the regular Spitfire wasn't really up to being pummelled down aboard, & required toughening up..

Engine-wise, the USN had favoured radials, from well pre-war, but their own research showed that in point of fact, any significant engine systems damage was rarely survivable..
So the apocryphal anecdotes of radials running fine sans whole cylinders & what not - are not really borne out in reality..

If indeed a machine did return, with a piston flailing about unrestrained, how confident would you be to just have a replacement top-end fitted..
..& be sent back out over the deep blue briny to take on the Nippon/Communist defences by hard-running combat power settings?

The USN did evaluate the Mustang as a potential candidate for a carrier-bird, but between not having to face the the more technically advanced Germans,
the USN's traditional anti-Army stance & the Mustang's somewhat tricky low-speed flying characteristics, they stuck with what they had..


BWilson

top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 2296

Re: Corsair
Posted on: 5/25/2016 2:05:22 AM
 As an aside, my father arrived in Korea right after the Chinese counteroffensive. The watchword re: aircraft among the U.S. troops was, "if it is a jet -- take cover!" (Meaning it was an enemy aircraft) Kind of illustrates how the U.S. ground forces viewed the air war at that point.

Cheers

BW
---------------
Mammalian orders ARE orders, and they ARE meant to be nursed.

MikeMeech
UK
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 232

Re: Corsair
Posted on: 5/25/2016 12:49:30 PM

Quote:

Quote:
He believed that the FAA's ready acceptance of the Corsair was "due to exigencies of the times".

Oh Mike! That is such a classic line! Just so bloody British and from such a good school! Thank you.

Isn't "exigencies of the times" short-hand for "we weren't building anything to fill the role"?

I'm not a RN fan, I will admit, so my comment may be unkind (or dead wrong). But it seems to me that FAA, while it had wonderful, gutsy pilots, never seemed to have great a/c. Sure, later in the war they flew modified Hurricanes off cruiser catapults, and modified the Spitfire for carrier service. But many of the RN a/c were only viable because of the extraordinary bravery of their crew. Who, for heaven's sake, would choose to man a Stringbag?


Quote:
[T]he F-51 did similar close support & supply interdiction missions as the Corsair, & they both had similar loss rates, which tends to bely the usual assumption of radial powered, aircraft carrier capable aircraft - as being 'more rugged' (effective) - in this role.

James, I'm assuming you're talking about the P-51 here, just to maintain clarity.

I had thought there was a different motivation for the use of radials over more standard engine layouts (i.e., Merlins, Packards, Napiers, etc.). While "more rugged" seems to have meant "less likely to break when landing on a carrier", I understand it may also have been code for "radials are much easier to repair than Vees or Aitches". I may have this entirely wrong, but I seem to remember this was an argument behind the prominence of radials throughout US air forces in WW2.

Any truth in that, from what you know?

Cheers
Brian G
--brian grafton


Hi

As I mentioned the FAA used the Corsair from carriers before the USN, the latter had found quite a few problems using it initially, the FAA put up with its problems hence "exigencies of the times".
Throughout the war the FAA compromised to get high performance fighters to sea, Sea Hurricane, Seafire, however, they started using the Martlet/Wildcat early on (September 1940) and introduced the Hellcat and Corsair later (the British aircraft industry was quite busy so it was necessary to put some limitation on numbers of designs being produced especially when there was perfectly adequate US designs). Post war (1947) the Hawker Sea Fury was introduced which was used in action during the Korean war, this was powered by the Bristol Centaurus (2,480 hp radial).

I am not sure of the comment of "more standard engine layouts" as the radial was a 'standard' layout. Most of the RAF's inter-war single-seat fighters were radial engine eg Hawker Woodcock, AW Siskin, Bristol Bulldog, Gloster Grebe, Gamecock, Gauntlet and Gladiator all had radials. Only the Hawker Fury had an inline (RR Kestrel)before the monoplane Hurricane and Spitfire, I presume they would have been regarded as non-standard when entering service. At the end of the war radials came back in the form of the Hawker Tempest II, but then jets were entering service as well.

Mike

James W.
Ballina, Australia
top 20
E-7 Sgt First Class
Posts: 363

Re: Corsair
Posted on: 5/25/2016 7:25:57 PM
Mike, the British had dramas with carrier planes due to the RAF demanding precedence over the RN FAA for aircraft.
The R-R company also had inordinate influence, & they didn't do radials..

Their big V 12 Griffon mill was specifically developed for the FAA, but was diverted to use in Spitfires to keep them competitive.

The Bristol company did the major British radials, but their big Centaurus was developed slowly & was too late for WW II.
Bristol Hercules radials powered their own Beaufighter, but never appeared in a useful wartime single engine fighter.

The RAF chose not to operate their Lend-Lease supplied US radial powered fighters in Europe, either.

Ironically, the Seafires powered by the big Griffon mill were also too late for wartime use.

The Hawker Sea Fury as a Corsair equivalent was test-flown with all 3 big British aero-mills, the Centaurus/Griffon/Sabre.
The Napier Sabre powered Fury prototype had the best performance, but the RAF, like the USAAF was jet-bent & didn't want any new prop fighters,
(with the limited exception of a few long range twin engine types, such as the DH Hornet & P-82 Twin Mustang).

The USN had plenty of F6Fs on hand, & so the more difficult to operate from carrier deck F4Us went to USMC ground bases, & as L-L to the RNZAF,
but AFAIR, by mid `44 the USN was starting to use the F4U aboard ship, just about the same period as the RN FAA was doing in Europe.

MikeMeech
UK
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 232

Re: Corsair
Posted on: 5/26/2016 11:28:56 AM

Quote:

but AFAIR, by mid `44 the USN was starting to use the F4U aboard ship, just about the same period as the RN FAA was doing in Europe.
--James W.


Hi

In an earlier post I mentioned that the USN cleared the Corsair, after trials, for carrier use the same month that the FAA had used it operationally from carriers against the Tirpitz.

Mike

James W.
Ballina, Australia
top 20
E-7 Sgt First Class
Posts: 363

Re: Corsair
Posted on: 5/26/2016 11:56:34 PM

Quote:

Quote:
Dave,

Yes a lot of Marine sqd flew the Corsair. Most of them land based if I'm not mistaken. It had a problem with the landing gear during Navy carrier trials.
--John R. Price


Hi

Yes the US Navy did have some problems and only started shipboard operations with the Corsair 9 months after the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm!

Mike
--MikeMeech



Was it this one, Mike?

AFAIR, the USN initially got the nightfighter Corsair active employed for shipboard service.


For those who are interested, the Corsair is included in some cool combat footage in 'The Flying Leathernecks' movie, with typical Howard Hughes high production values.

anemone
DONCASTER S. YORKS, UK
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 4758
http:// 94.175.43.226
Re: Corsair
Posted on: 5/27/2016 9:51:48 AM
Deck Landing Teething Problems

With the awesome 2,804 cubic inch (46 litre) Double Wasp air-cooled radial engine developing 1,850 hp (1,380.6 kW), the only way to convert that kind of horsepower efficiently into thrust was with a huge Hamilton Standard Hydromatic, 3 blade prop which measured 13 feet 4 inches (4.06 metres) in diameter.

And that created a problem of deck clearance for the prop. It seemed either the main landing gear had to be lengthened, or the prop had to be shortened.
Since the landing gear had to be very strong to withstand the pounding of a carrier deck landing, a short, stout leg was required. Also, there wouldn’t be enough room in the wing to properly stow a longer gear. And, if the prop were shortened, much of the horsepower of the Double Wasp would be wasted.

So, Vought engineers came up with the distinctive inverted gull-wing design which forever characterized the F4U Corsair. This "bent wing" design allowed the huge prop to clear the deck while providing for a short, stout landing gear. And, as a byproduct, the wing also improved the aerodynamics of the intersection where the wing attaches to the fuselage, boosting the top speed.

Regards
Jim
---------------
Pro Patria Saepe Pro Rege Semper

James W.
Ballina, Australia
top 20
E-7 Sgt First Class
Posts: 363

Re: Corsair
Posted on: 5/28/2016 7:47:00 PM
Jim, the F6F Hellcat & P-47 Thunderbolt both also used the P & W R-2800, but didn't need to use a Corsair style 'bent wing'.
Incidentally, the British Typhoon & Tempest featured an even larger diameter - 14 ft - prop, as required by their even more powerful Napier Sabre mill..

 (1946-1999) Other 20th Century Battles    
 Forum Ads from Google