Whistling death. The Corsair.

[MarkV]

Originally Posted by At ease

It is hardly significant, as I have already pointed out that Spitfires had raised hoods from 1939 and hoods of a similar configuration had been incorporated on the US production line since late 1942 - well before Corsairs being introduced into service by the FAA.

You might like to go to the trouble of attempting to upload any photographs that you have access to proving that the canopy styles used by the FAA were materially different to other versions.

So what? The original point was that the FAA introduced the bulged hood to the Corsair - not that that they invented it. I've given you a reference but I don't break copyright by scanning and posting books - since you claim to be el supremo of all things aviation I'm sure your supreme pomposity owns a copy.

[At ease]

Originally Posted by MarkV

So what? The original point was that the FAA introduced the bulged hood to the Corsair - not that that they invented it.

For about the third time, by late 1942 it was already incorporated on the Corsair production line.

Retro fit kits were produced for incorporation into those aircraft originally produced with the inferior item.

I've given you a reference but I don't break copyright by scanning and posting books - since you claim to be el supremo of all things aviation I'm sure your supreme pomposity owns a copy.

Nice try.

You have been here long enough to understand that it would not be a breach of forum rules to post an image or a small passage of a book or article provided that you provided correct attribution.

I do it all the time and have never been cautioned about it by Admin.

Anyway, I have never claimed to be "el supremo of all things aviation", but you just have.

Thanks for that.

But come to think of it, I don't believe that there are too many members here who have held a valid private pilots licence, aerobatics rating, upright spins rating(both ratings incorporated into my private licence undertaken at the Sydney Aerobatics School), studied towards the attainment of their Commercial Pilots Licence(not completed due to running out of money).

Bob "Pitch Rate" is a highly accomplished former USAF pilot, but I am unaware of any other qualified pilots here.

"Bluenose", I believe, has some air time and as a result is quite knowledgeable on such matters.

There are plenty of "armchair" aviators here, but not many with any formal qualifications to speak of.

MarkV, you might like to tell us about your aviation experience.

How many hours in your logbook?

[At ease]

Originally Posted by Nick the Noodle

The Wildcat could fly higher and as fast as the Zero. It also had a greater dive speed. In the attack, as long as the F4F simply attacked from above, and carried on diving until out of harms way, the US pilot was safe. In defense, as you have noted, the Thatch Weave could be employed, a tactic the unarmoured Zero could not copy.

What the Wildcat could not do was dogfight with a Zero, which was initial inclination of most US pilots, and where the initial opinion of the F4F comes from.

According to the following well known comparison test of a captured Zero, the F4F was inferior to the Zero in climb and altitude performance.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...um85-dec42.pdf

That is a major leg of supposed advantage ripped away.

It didn't leave much except for numbers and tactics, as I pointed out before.

See the attachments below, page 10 of the report, for a very short but conclusive statement concerning altitude/climb and a general overall(unfavourable for the F4F) comparison.

Once again, not my opinions, but pertinent comments from those in the drivers seat, or cockpit, if you like.

[Blair Maynard]

Originally Posted by MarkV

So what? The original point was that the FAA introduced the bulged hood to the Corsair - not that that they invented it. I've given you a reference but I don't break copyright by scanning and posting books - since you claim to be el supremo of all things aviation I'm sure your supreme pomposity owns a copy.

In the US there is a concept of "fair use" exception to copyright laws.

As a funny anecdote, I once worked in a patent law firm and I noticed that they were photocopying magazine articles, graduate theses, book chapters, and anything that pertained to patents they were trying to file with the Patent Trade Office. So I asked one of the lawyers something like "you are photocopying articles from publications and using them in a for-profit law firm, isn't that a violation of copyright laws without the author's permission?" And he said "no it's fair use".

So using other people's admittedly copyrighted works is not automatically a copyright violation. The funny thing is that it seems like everybody on the internet is an intellectual property expert and people run around like vigilantes accusing people of theft when they take pictures or scans of other documents and post them. Especially guilty of this are moderators (of other forums of course ).

[Blair Maynard]

Originally Posted by Half Pint John

Didn't German civilian aircraft continue to fly out of Berlin?

Of course, but that doesnt contradict the assertion that Cotton flew the last civilian aircraft out of Berlin before war was declared. All the subsequent civilian aircraft were flown out after war was declared.

[At ease]

Originally Posted by Blair Maynard

I just saw an old video of a USN aircraft bombing a mountainous island during WWII. It just flew along straight and level and dropped its bomb while passing over the target. (edit: I just realized that the video I saw was in the link posted above at 25:51)

Now I am curious, how generally did USN/Marine Corsairs bomb land targets?

As someone who wasnt there at the time, I (and maybe a lot of other people who werent there) would assume that they bombed like the famous Douglass SBD Dauntless dive bombers did on Japanese aircraft carriers at the battle of Midway. Straight down and pull out at the last second. Is that how the Corsair pilots bombed too? Maybe this wasnt the preferred method when flak wasnt as big a concern?

Originally Posted by Pruitt

[.....]
The Corsair did not have the special dive brakes that a dive bomber had so high angle dives are out.
[.....]
Pruitt

Not so.

From re-reading "Whistling Death" by Boone Guyton again for the purposes of this thread, I remembered a passage in it describing how in testing the diving capabilities of the Corsair were explored and developed.

(I am unable to spend the time right now to find the exact pages from the book - source reference given in post #37)

Guyton describes how it was established that a Corsair could be dived controllably by extending the undercarriage.

Most of it was strong enough to survive the increased air loads, with the exception of the tailwheel doors.

Production line changes were made to fix this.

The Corsair u/c was quite different to most other aircraft of the time(Curtis P40 Kittyhawk being another example of a similar u/c design) in that it operated fore/aft rather than sideways.

This might help to explain why it was more tolerant of higher air loads.

Author Peter Smith in:

Dive Bomber!: Aircraft, Technology, and Tactics in World War II

https://books.google.com.au/books?id...bomber&f=false

gives a short mention of Corsair dive bombing sorties on pp315.

See attachment below

[Bwaha]

Originally Posted by At ease

Not so.

From re-reading "Whistling Death" by Boone Guyton again for the purposes of this thread, I remembered a passage in it describing how in testing the diving capabilities of the Corsair were explored and developed.

(I am unable to spend the time right now to find the exact pages from the book - source reference given in post #37)

Guyton describes how it was established that a Corsair could be dived controllably by extending the undercarriage.

Most of it was strong enough to survive the increased air loads, with the exception of the tailwheel doors.

Production line changes were made to fix this.

The Corsair u/c was quite different to most other aircraft of the time(Curtis P40 Kittyhawk being another example of a similar u/c design) in that it operated fore/aft rather than sideways.

This might help to explain why it was more tolerant of higher air loads.

Author Peter Smith in:

Dive Bomber!: Aircraft, Technology, and Tactics in World War II

https://books.google.com.au/books?id...bomber&f=false

gives a short mention of Corsair dive bombing sorties on pp315.

See attachment below

Huh I thought The Corsair was more used in 'glide bombing'. Rather than 'dive bombing' due to it not having dive brakes...

[At ease]

Originally Posted by Bwaha

Huh I thought The Corsair was more used in 'glide bombing'. Rather than 'dive bombing' due to it not having dive brakes...

It is unlikely that an author and acknowledged expert on dive bombing in particular and military history in general such as Peter Smith would see fit to include references to the Corsair in his book entiled, strangely enough, "Dive Bomber....." unless said aircraft was considered to have been noteworthy in said role.

Certainly, the overall preponderance of tonnage dropped by the Corsair may have been from level flight, but that does not detract from it's apparently little known prowess in a role that may seem counter intuitive.

I believe that most tend to fixate on the videos seen of Corsairs in Korea, wildly scattering napalm from level flight.

I know I have, up 'till now as I was largely unaware of the abililty to drop vertically.

Possibly a lack of WW2 films concentrating on said role may be responsible for the misaprehension.

Dive bombing.....a feather in the Corsairs cap.

[Bwaha]

Glide Bombing WW2 USN manual shows different data.

Link. http://aviationshoppe.com/manuals/na...e_bombing.html

[At ease]

Originally Posted by Bwaha

Glide Bombing WW2 USN manual shows different data.

Link. http://aviationshoppe.com/manuals/na...e_bombing.html

Different data compared to what?

I was unaware that either me or my sources, Guyton or Smith, had provided any data on dive bombing, or made direct comparisons to other forms of bombing.

All I said was that the Corsair's ability to dive bomb was largely unknown, even by me up 'till very recently.

Comments, yes.

Annecdotes, yes.

Comparisons, no.

[Bwaha]

Originally Posted by At ease;3263ne418

Different data compared to what?

I was unaware that either me or my sources, Guyton or Smith, had provided any data on dive bombing, or made direct comparisons to other forms of bombing.

All I said was that the Corsair's ability to dive bomb was largely unknown, even by me up 'till very recently.

I sincerely doubt the ability of the Corsairs dumping its landing gear to dive bomb. Not trying to offend or doubt you, but glide bombing was the specified means of attack as far as I know...

I doubt the author or the source rather than you. Though with Marines never doubt the crazy...

[At ease]

Originally Posted by Bwaha

I sincerely doubt the ability of the Corsairs dumping its landing gear to dive bomb. Not trying to offend or doubt you, but glide bombing was the specified means of attack as far as I know...

I doubt the author or the source rather than you. Though with Marines never doubt the crazy...

I referred to Boone Guyton making reference in his book to how dive testing was explored and expanded.

Such testing was mainly for the more important aspect of air to air combat, but an important sub-set in this case was for ground attack purposes.

BG was the chief test pilot of the Corsair for the majority of its development.

He was the man.

Peter Smith has written more books on dive bomber aircraft and tactics than anyone else I know of.

It might be apparent that I have a habit of reading aviation books, so if there is a more prolific and authorative author on that particular topic, I am yet to be made aware of it.

By going to the following link you will see most of his books on said topic plus some of his other modern military history publications.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=p...NxA3U4FBCwBAhC

+1 for your link in post #54.

There should be more of it.

[At ease]

Check out the WW2 era training film at the following site:

http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/F4U.html

@5.55 mins the forward undercarriage doors are clearly shown.

They are quite large and in the extended position are perpendicular to the airstream.....

@15.00 mins

Now let's see how she behaves in a dive

Lower the wheels with the dive brake control

instructions are provided as how to operate the separate gear down handle (aka dive brake control) to allow diving to take place.

It drops the main gear whilst leaving the tail wheel raised.

The film then shows a demonstration of a Corsair diving with main wheels down.

Instructions are given to ensure that wing flaps are not used whilst diving.

The engine is, as is customary with a dive, in idle condition.

(unless attempting to chase an opponent or evade one)

Throttle "slightly open", mixture rich, prop pitch set to fine.

In such a condition a very large prop such as what was on the Corsair is also a useful provider of drag, helping to delay speed build up in a steep dive.

[Bwaha]

Originally Posted by At ease

Check out the WW2 era training film at the following site:

http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/F4U.html

@5.55 mins the forward undercarriage doors are clearly shown.

They are quite large and in the extended position are perpendicular to the airstream.....

@15.00 mins





instructions are provided as how to operate the separate gear down handle (aka dive brake control) to allow diving to take place.

It drops the main gear whilst leaving the tail wheel raised.

The film then shows a demonstration of a Corsair diving with main wheels down.

Instructions are given to ensure that wing flaps are not used whilst diving.

The engine is, as is customary with a dive, in idle condition.

(unless attempting to chase an opponent or evade one)

Throttle "slightly open", mixture rich, prop pitch set to fine.

In such a condition a very large prop such as what was on the Corsair is also a useful provider of drag, helping to delay speed build up in a steep dive.

Okay, You've convinced me.

[Pruitt]

I learned something, too!

Pruitt