In real life the F4U Corsair was a pig to fly. It had horrible handling characteristics and pilots that transferred from the easy to fly Hellcat hated the F4U, even though the F4U was considerably faster. Corsair pilots used to call the F4U the "Hog" as well as "the bent-wing widow maker" because of all the handling related accidents the F4U had.
In fact, pilots had such trouble with the Corsair's handling that the US Navy first thought it to be unsuitable for carrier operations. The first F4U's were therefore restricted to land operations. It took some extensive training before the Corsair could be used on carriers. Even then the F4U was known more as a USMC fighter than a USN fighter, with most Corsairs remaining land-based.
Turning dogfights were to be avoided at all costs in the F4U. Boom & Zoom tactics were the way to success for the F4U, making good use of its 400mph+ top speed at high altitude. The F4U's size enabled it to carry a considerable load of bombs & rockets, which made it especially good in the ground attack role.
Despite the fact the trent has to login for almost a year, I feel obliged to reply. It's very annoying that someone posts a comment without
1) reading what was written before in the same topic
2) apperently, never tried the plane himself of the simulator or at least not the other planes on its class to compare it.
About the comment of being a "pig". Well, almost single engined high powered in the 2000 bhp (or more) class was a "pig". Ex-Hurricane pilots would comment that the Typhoon/Tempest was a plane "for real men", while the Hurricane was "for boys". Ex-merlin spitfire pilots would comment about "wild nature" of the griffon-spitfires in contrast with the "sweet nature" of the merlin-spitfires. Experten would comment about the difficulty of novice pilots in the late 109s (G-14/AS, G-10, K-4) in contrast with the forgiving -D & -E models that were around when they were novice pilots. Soviets would allow initially new recruits to start their combat sorties with the La-5. And Japanese pilots similarly they would comment how the Ki-84, N1K1/2-J and J2M needed an experienced pilot to get the best out of it, in contrast with the more forgiving nature of the Ki-43 & A6M.
So in essence, this is a common theme with most of the single engined piston fighters that are close or exceed the 2000 bhp power class. In this level of power the "torquesteer" applied in full power settings became so huge that only experienced pilots could apply full throttle settings in combat and be able use the performance successfully and within a relative safety.
What was the "unfortunate" for the F4U was that it was the very first single engine fighter that arrived in the 2000 bhp power class. It was not long before that pilots were used in biplanes with less the half horsepower and the transition was huge. In a sense the long career of the F4U is mostly responsible for this reputation. Both in the early days of it career and in the last days, pilots used either in biplanes or jets would find the F4U difficult.
About the comparison with the F6F. I am a fan of the F6F myself. Grumman realized the most important point for a carrier fighter is to be exactly this, carrier COMPATIBLE. Indeed, the F6F is the most docile of the "2000 bhp power class" single engined fighters.
The F4U was hugely successful in combat. In fact F4U, F6F & P-38 are the top three most successful WWII US fighters in air combat. Of course one would argue that all of them were used primary in the pacific and not in Europe as the P-47 & P-51.
Author
Topic: F4U-1 FM (Read 13034 times)
