Not a problem with land bases, where airstrip size isn't at a premiumAssuming the F4U's own teething problems with its landing gear aren't in consideration,
A reason why i included the Corsair in this scenario.Not a problem with land bases, where airstrip size isn't at a premium
Not a problem with land bases, where airstrip size isn't at a premium
Why not simply build more P-47s for Europe? The USN needs their Hellcats and Corsairs which were more then perfectly adequate against the Japanese airforces.
It was a problem for them also. But since that was the aircraft being provided they figured out how to make it workWasn't a problem for the Royal Navy on carriers, either.
There was a thread on this board awhile ago about the USAAF going with long range fighters earlier in 1942-early 1943. The Corsair would have been a good off the shelf choice because it had the range and the Navy had already assigned it to shore duty with the Marines.
The F4U could be a stop-gap fighter until enough Mustangs are available for the Eighth Air Force. The Corsair begins replacing P-38s in the Eighth. The Ninth Air Force becomes a complete Thunderbolt organization?
I wonder if the Corsair would be better suited for duty in Italy? It would allow for more Mustangs to be sent to England.
The problem the F4U has is its power, top speed, and rate of climb tail off sharply above 23,000ft, once the blower's high speed critical altitude is reached. The P-47 keeps getting faster until 28,000ft (31k ft for the P-47D @ 435mph). At approximately 27,500ft the P47C is 40mph faster then the F4U. If the bombers you are escorting are at 25,000ft, you need more performance above that altitude then below it to give you better performance against enemy fighters above the bombers. At that altitude the P-51 has an extra 20mph. At that altitude the FW190 A-5 is faster then the F4U, but not either of the other planes.
I read that the P47 cost more to produce than the Mustang.
With two 165 gallon tanks the P-47 had a tactical radius of 600miles.
It was a problem for them also. But since that was the aircraft being provided they figured out how to make it work
Not really. The USN had two fighters under contract that were being delivered in volume. Both met the performance criteria The F6F had better deck handling characteristics. SO they assigned the F6F to (generally carrier based) Navy squadrons and the F4U to the (generally shore based) Marine squadrons. There were some F4Us assigned to Navy units (VF-17 and later some nightfighter units) and worked out the decklanding issues.Which the US Navy proved incapable of doing...
Not really. The USN had two fighters under contract that were being delivered in volume. Both met the performance criteria The F6F had better deck handling characteristics. SO they assigned the F6F to (generally carrier based) Navy squadrons and the F4U to the (generally shore based) Marine squadrons. There were some F4Us assigned to Navy units (VF-17 and later some nightfighter units) and worked out the decklanding issues.
The primary reason for the decision to send the F6F to the Navy and the F4U to the Marines was to simplify the maintenance and spares pipeline.
As far as the British 'solving' the decklanding issues, except for the first 95 aircraft they received with the 'birdcage' canopy their aircraft were F4U-1A and later which had the 'blown' canopy and other modifications which were instituted after the problems encountered in the early decklanding trials and in the initial British use of the aircraft. The British did use a different approach which American Corsair units adopted. So the successful adaptation of the Corsair for carrier use was the result of both American and British efforts to make it work. But the primary use of the Corsair by the Marines was due to a logistical decision made by the Navy as much as anything else.
Basically what if Grumman makes a dedicated land version of the Hellcat as a competitor to the Corsair? The reason being that Grumman hoped to supply all Navy and Marine Fighter squadrons. What if Grumman offered it’s land-based Hellcat to the USAAF in the Pacific to replace P-39
and P-40s? Instead of going to the Pacific the USAAF Hellcat goes to the 8th Air Force
As far as I know, they solved the "bounce" that was unacceptable to the US Navy. The Royal Navy did that, without US Navy help, as far as I know.
The RN clipped the wingtips of Corsairs to allow them to fit into the hangars, which increased their sink rate on approach as a byproduct and it was this which cured the bounce. The other RN thing was the curved approach to the carrier, as opposed to the USN straight approach, this allowed RN pilots to see the carrier off to one side over the dip in the wing which was another happy accident.