• Hi Guest!
    You can help ensure that British Car Forum (BCF) continues to provide a great place to engage in the British car hobby! If you find BCF a beneficial community, please consider supporting our efforts with a subscription.
    There are some perks with a member upgrade!
    **Upgrade Now**
    (PS: Subscribers don't see this gawd-aweful banner
Tips
Tips

Top Ten Fighter Aircraft of all time!

Share this page

I don't know where the poor visibility issue came from just for F4Us. It's carrier landing problem was basically from stiff landing gear. All tail dragger aircraft with high horsepower engines and some without, had a visibility issue in a three point position. Even the old tail dragger trainers had that problem. My personal Stearman, (below), had those issues. Especially if the cockpit was further back. You use a split vision technique and looking back and forth from side to side on flaring out. You "S" turned back and forth while taxiing looking out the side of the AC. The problem is, just about everyone who slams an airplane on landing has an excuse. Some blame the aircraft as having a poor design, or the wind was this or the wind was that, or a crosswind caused it, rather than excepting the fact that they pulled a dumb/stupid maneuver and refuse to blame themselves. I've been a civilian flight instructor in my spare time since 1964 and have heard every excuse in the book for a bad landing. And, yes, how many times have I heard, this aircraft handles kinda funny. The F4Us vision issue, is just an excuse.
Here's a photo of my old Stearman. I know a little bit about tail draggers.

plane1.jpg
 
PAUL161 said:
I don't know where the poor visibility issue came from just for F4Us. It's carrier landing problem was basically from stiff landing gear. All tail dragger aircraft with high horsepower engines and some without, had a visibility issue in a three point position. Even the old tail dragger trainers had that problem. My personal Stearman, (below), had those issues. Especially if the cockpit was further back. You use a split vision technique and looking back and forth from side to side on flaring out. You "S" turned back and forth while taxiing looking out the side of the AC. The problem is, just about everyone who slams an airplane on landing has an excuse. Some blame the aircraft as having a poor design, or the wind was this or the wind was that, or a crosswind caused it, rather than excepting the fact that they pulled a dumb/stupid maneuver and refuse to blame themselves. I've been a civilian flight instructor in my spare time since 1964 and have heard every excuse in the book for a bad landing. And, yes, how many times have I heard, this aircraft handles kinda funny. The F4Us vision issue, is just an excuse.
I know a little bit about tail draggers.
Click to expand...
Not saying that there wasn't landing gear problems, there where according to the attached source of the quote below. But I know a bit about carrier aircraft too. (See highlited.)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]Several stumbling blocks developed when carrier trials were held aboard the USS Sangamon and other carriers in late 1941. The biggest problem was the long nose. It stuck out 14 feet (4.27 m) in front of the pilot, and when the Corsair was sitting in take-off position, the nose pointed up at an angle sufficient to block forward vision to about 12Âş above the horizon. In carrier landings it was practically impossible to see the Landing Signals Officer once the Corsair was lined up with the carrier deck on final approach. Adding to this problem were oil and hydraulic leaks from the engine compartment which seeped past the cowl flaps and smeared the windshield, further restricting visibility.

Landing on a carrier deck required the pilot to have the plane at stall speed just as the tail-hook snagged the deck wire, but this was made very difficult by the wicked stall characteristics of the F4U. Just as stall speed was reached, the left wing tended to drop like a rock. In a deck landing this could cause the landing gear to collapse resulting in injuries to the pilot and severe damage to the aircraft. Assuming luck was with the pilot and he landed intact, the Corsair normally "bottomed out" the shock absorbers as it slammed down on the deck. The resulting recoil caused the plane to bounce high in the air. The tailhook itself sometimes failed to "trap" the plane by engaging an arrestor wire. If this happened on a straight deck carrier it usually meant the aircraft plowed into the planes parked forward. It was said on a straight deck carrier there were only two kinds of landings; a "trap" and a catastrophe!

As the Corsair was thought by the Navy to be unsuitable for carrier duty, it was given to the U.S. Marines for land-based operations where it earned an outstanding combat record. Britain, France, New Zealand, Australia also received the F4U during WWII.
[/QUOTE]

Source: Vought F4U Corsair
 
It would seem we're both kind'a sort'a correct. In that the landing gear issues you mentioned, where a result (a symptom if you will) of the design issues I brought up that affected carrier landings.

But as I mentioned before the Navy's loss was the Marine Corps gain. /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/thumbsup.gif
 
I've flown an F4U and didn't find it difficult to land, albeit on a stationary runway. You just line everything up, adjust your descent rate, and watch out the side. You can tell from your visual when to flare and touch down. Taxiing was no more difficult than any other tail dragger, and the wide gear made for pretty stable ground handling.
You could also snap roll it with the throttle!
Jeff
 
Said it yourself Jeff, Taxiing & landing on a static airfield is not the same thing as try'n to keep an eye on the LSO while trying to land on a pitching deck at stall speed hoping to catch your tail hook.

Throw in some good gusts, some rain and make it a night recovery landing - and your talking a major "pucker factor". /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif
 
I agree totally Bret. I've made one carrier landing in my life, and that was right seat in an A-6. Scared the bejeebers out of me. My cousin said that "When they tighten me up on the 'cat for a night weather launch, you can hear dogs whimper on the beach."
Jeff
 
I can hear 'em NOW, just reading this! /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif
 
Bret said:
Said it yourself Jeff, Taxiing & landing on a static airfield is not the same thing as try'n to keep an eye on the LSO while trying to land on a pitching deck at stall speed hoping to catch your tail hook.

Throw in some good gusts, some rain and make it a night recovery landing - and your talking a major "pucker factor". /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif
Click to expand...


happy0148.gif
THAT'S WHY THOSE NAVY PILOTS ARE THE BEST!
happy0158.gif
 
Yup! There’s a HUGE difference in pilots and yer tail hook “Naval” (Navy & Marine) Aviators. Same basic skill sets as any other combat aviators but with the added pressure of carrier operations. After the bombs & bullets are through flying – the Naval aviator still has to catch that notorious number three wire in his multimillion dollar aircraft on a pitching deck.
 
Back
Top