|
Post by olroy2044 on Oct 31, 2010 23:44:46 GMT -5
When the Corsair entered service, it was the fastest fighter in the US inventory. It was surpassed in that category by the later marks of P51, but was competitive even with them. Early versions did have severe problems with carrier landings, and the US Navy relegated them to land-based use by the Marines. The Royal Navy was the first to put the Corsair into regular carrier use, prompting the US to take another look. Two major modifications were made (along with many smaller ones) which turned the Corsair into a successful carrier aircraft. The landing gear oleos were extensively modified, with a longer stroke, which virtually eliminated the tendency of the aircraft to bounce on landing. The huge 4-blade prop (which was indeed the reason for the inverted gull wing) was replaced by a smaller diameter 3-blade unit, which, surprisingly, increased the performance. This helped to greatly lessen the occurrence of "prop-strike" accidents. Roy
|
|
|
Post by nikkortorokkor on Nov 3, 2010 13:10:12 GMT -5
In 1944, RNZAF pilots also got Corsairs to replace their Kittyhawks. I'd always thought this was the turning point for them against the superior manouverability of the Zeros, but the ever-useful Wikipaedia proves quite illumiunating:
"RNZAF P-40 squadrons were successful in air combat against the Japanese between 1942 and 1944. Their pilots claimed 100 aerial victories in P-40s, whilst losing 20 aircraft in combat. Geoff Fisken, the highest scoring British Commonwealth ace in the Pacific, flew P-40s with 15 Squadron, although half of his victories were claimed with the Brewster Buffalo."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2010 15:33:21 GMT -5
Fisken must have been a h3ll of a pilot as the general consensus in those days was that any pilot sent into combat in a Brewster Buffalo should be considered lost before leaving the ground.
One of the main lessons you had to learn to stay alive against the Zero in the early days was to never try to out turn one and never try to out climb one. That's where it excelled. But it did not do nearly as well at high altitudes and many Allied planes were faster in a dive. In addition, the Zero didn't have self-sealing tanks and could not take as much punishment and its opponents could. The usual burned it hit. A Zero crash landed in the Aleutians in 1942. It was recovered by the U.S. and put back into flying condition. What was learned in test flights was used to build the F6F Hellcat which could turn with a Zero, out dive it, out climb it and had armor to protect the pilot.
|
|
|
Post by nikkortorokkor on Nov 4, 2010 13:19:43 GMT -5
Apparently the P40 pilots learned to use "boom and zoom" tactics on the Zero, using the Kittyhawk's superior speed and robustness (it could out-turn a Zero at high speeds, where the latter's oversize airelons became a hindrance rather than a help) to "get out of Dodge" after an initial attack. I quote again from Wikipaedia: Contrary to conventional wisdom, with sufficient altitude the P-40 could actually turn with the A6M and other Japanese fighters, using a combination of nose-down vertical turn with a bank turn, a technique known as a low yo-yo. Robert DeHaven describes how this tactic was used in the 49th Fighter group: [Y]ou could fight a Jap on even terms, but you had to make him fight your way. He could outturn you at slow speed. You could outturn him at high speed. When you got into a turning fight with him, you dropped your nose down so you kept your airspeed up, you could outturn him. At low speed he could outroll you because of those big ailerons ... on the Zero. If your speed was up over 275, you could outroll . His big ailerons didn't have the strength to make high speed rolls... You could push things, too. Because ... f you decided to go home, you could go home. He couldn't because you could outrun him. [...] That left you in control of the fight. Back to the older aircraft, a local paper carried news of the collection and its significance: There are not many collections that have a single original WWI aircraft that is airworthy. The Vintage Aviator has three flying examples - all with original engines. They also have seven replicas and several "full reproductions". The reproductions are aircraft painstakingly created as exact copies of the originals as if they had just come off the production line almost 100 years ago. They use original plans, original materials and often imitate the original manufacturing methods.
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Nov 4, 2010 14:23:21 GMT -5
Micheal
There is a delicate balance with these older airplanes. On the one side there is the pull of preservation/static display and on the other to put them back in their natural element. I'm selfish and want to see them in the air. In another forum a South African fellow was showing aircraft of the SAAF. He had a photo of the last flying Shackleton. They had two but lost one on the way to an airshow. The last one has 100 hours left on it's airframe so the time aloft is limited to special occasions. I hope they renew the airframe and keep her going.
Bob
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Nov 5, 2010 19:12:45 GMT -5
Brilliant.
My uncle was a member of a flying club (Southport, I think) in the 1950s. I remember going down to watch him take off from and land on the beach.
I did plan to go to the aeroshow near Southport this August gone, but it clashed with something else. Photos such as these always renew my enthusiasm.
|
|