Combat aircraft. "And I will be a pirate, a bastard "

2024 Author: Matthew Elmers | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 21:49

Who doesn't know this plane? A flying log with an attached lantern? Perfectly identifiable even by non-specialists F4U "Corsair" from "Chance-Vout" company.

The best (according to the Japanese) and almost the best (according to everyone else) carrier-based fighter of the Second World War.

But today I wanted to start our conversation … no, not with a historical perspective, although where without it? I wanted to start with such a concept as conservatism. In general, when we say this word, the image of such a British gentleman, sir, usually pops up in my head, as constant as… as any constant.

And that's wrong!

As practice has shown, the true conservatives were in the American Naval Aviation Department. Moreover, conservatism bordered on obstinacy. Well, how else can you call the fact that a naval aircraft in the United States could only be a biplane?

It's 1937, and biplanes are in their heads. This, sorry, is difficult to understand and accept.

Curtiss XF-13C, which made its maiden flight as the XF-13C-1 monoplane, at the insistence of the fleet mutated into the XF-13C-2 one and a half glider. It was just that it was technically expensive to make a biplane out of it, and that was the only thing that saved me. But this mutant flew so sadly that he had to return everything back.

Combat aircraft. "And I will be a pirate, a bastard …"

What can I say, XF4F-1, the future "Wild Cat", was also ordered as a biplane!

In general, there was a problem: one meander along the two wings of the biplane. I don’t know, to be honest, what saved the American naval aviation, whether shootings, or car accidents, but it’s a fact: by 1940, biplane lovers had calmed down (or were calmed down). And work began on normal airplanes.

But by that time everything was so sad that the land-based Buffalo F2A-2, about which I would hardly even undertake to write something, since it was one of the saddest aircraft in history, produced 542 km / h in the production version. While the experimental naval fighter XF4F-3 with the much-anticipated Pratt & Whitney XR-1830-76 Twin Wasp engine showed only 536 km / h on tests.

There was also a stunning idea to build deck-mounted twin-engine fighters, but, thank God, it didn't come to that. Although Grumman proposed a twin-engined aircraft project …

But, in fact, the "Woats" shone with inventions. On all aircraft of that time, screws with a diameter of 3-3.5 meters were installed, and the developers of the "Corsair", in order to force all 1850 "horses" of the engine to "plow", put a screw with a diameter of 4 meters!

It is clear that it was necessary to lift the nose of the aircraft, and here you have a wing in the shape of a "reverse gull". Otherwise, you would have to make very high landing gear, which would become the weak point of the aircraft. Plus the bonus of the problem with cleaning the racks in the wing.

Armament consisted of four machine guns: two synchronous M1 caliber 7.62 mm and two wing M2 caliber 12.7 mm.

On tests, the aircraft showed a maximum speed of 608 km / h at an altitude of 7,000 m. It was declared the winner in the competition and on June 30, 1941, the fleet placed an order for 584 aircraft for the aviation of the fleet and the Marine Corps. The plane was named "Corsair" at the firm, and since the fate of the plane happened to everyone, God forbid, pirate names became traditional for the "Vout" fighters.

Orders are great, but commissioning did not work out very smoothly. The first flights of "Corsairs" from the deck of an aircraft carrier at sea revealed a whole bunch of problems. The propeller, this huge propeller created such a reactive moment that when landing, the plane fell on the left plane, and began to "goat", and not just like that, but on one "leg" of the landing gear,easily skipping the cables of the aerofinisher.

A lot of criticism was caused by the cover of the lantern, which really interfered with the view and gave rise to the nickname "Birdcage". Plus it was spattered with oil by the engine when the cooling flaps were completely open.

I had to urgently carry out a complex of improvements. Moreover, the approach was more ours than the American one. With oil on the lantern, the problem was solved by simply fixing the upper flaps in the closed position.

We had to suffer with the reactive moment, but we also decided. The keel was turned two degrees to the left, and on the right edge of the wing, an aluminum corner was installed next to it - a "flow breaker", which reduced the lift of the right console and thus reduced the reactive moment.

The picture clearly shows a corner above the machine guns, stuck to the wing. This is the breaker.

If in general, they were promptly processed with a hammer and a file.

And the "Corsair" did go into production, but it didn’t just go, but actually flew. So much so that I had to involve other manufacturers. The Brewster factories produced the base model of the Corsair under the designation F3A-1, and Goodyear (these are not only tires!) Built the same aircraft under the designation FG-1, but without the wing folding mechanism, and Goodyear aircraft went to the United States Marine Corps.

The lantern was completed later. An almost "bubble" like that of "Spitfire", a convex-shaped sliding part, solved the problem of visibility. Moreover, the cab wall was lowered by 230 millimeters for a better side-down view.

Well, not far off was the test of battle.

The Corsairs received their baptism of fire in the skies over the Solomon Islands, and the first F4U squadron was deployed to Guadalcanal in February 1943. And on February 14, the first military clash with the enemy took place. A combined group of three squadrons F4U, P-40 and P-38, escorting bombers, was intercepted by Japanese Zero fighters. The ratio was not in favor of the Americans, 36 against 50, so the Japanese gave the Yankees a complete defeat.

Two F4Us, four P-38s, two P-40s, two PB4Ys with three shot down "Zeros" - you must admit that this is a so-so debut.

But American pilots simply haven't learned enough about their aircraft in the retraining process. Many researchers on this topic noted that 20 hours to retrain with the "Buffalo" or "Wildcat" was clearly not enough. Plus the complete absence of tactics for using the aircraft based on its strengths.

So, at first, the Japanese worked very hard on the "training" of American pilots, which did not affect the aircraft's reputation in the best way.

However, over time, everything fell into place, Americans learn very quickly, especially if they are beaten hard at the same time.

"Zeros" outnumbered "Corsairs" in close maneuvering combat. The Corsairs were faster and faster as they climbed. Based on this, a tactic appeared when the Americans tried to attack first, using precisely these advantages.

Finding Japanese aircraft, the Yankees quickly climbed, and then attacked from a dive. After the attack, they left with a climb and took up a new line for a second attack. It is somewhat similar to the "swing" used by the Focke-Wulf pilots.

And it was better not to get involved in close combat, because there they had to rely only on the strength of the structure or on the high-speed capabilities, thanks to which it was possible to break away from the enemy.

But in general, the Marine Corps aircraft "entered", and by the end of 1943, all the fighter squadrons of the US Marine Corps in the South Pacific were rearmed with F4U fighters, and by that time 584 enemy aircraft had been destroyed by the Corsairs.

It was more difficult with naval aviation. It was necessary to refine the problems that interfere with the landing, which were mentioned above, so that the naval pilots received the Corsairs later than the Marines.

In general, the second half of the war, "Corsair" plowed the full program.

Is it the best? Many people think so. For example, Japanese researchers and participants in that war unequivocally gave the palm to this aircraft.

However, there are many opinions that the best deck boat was the F6F Hellcat. The paradox, but it was the delay in fine-tuning the "Corsair" that gave birth to this car, which also turned out to be very successful. But comparing F6F and F4U is a separate topic.

Statistics, especially in the performance of the Americans, is a very difficult thing.

It seems that the "Corsair" is in complete order with her, in aerial battles the F4U pilots destroyed 2,140 Japanese aircraft with the loss of only 189 aircraft. Complete, as they say, peremoga.

But if you look further and in very small letters, it turns out that the so-called "other" losses significantly exceed the indicated figure.

“Others” is because I (unlike the Americans) cannot call the destruction of an aircraft by anti-aircraft artillery non-combat. And with them it is easy.

So, the "others", including the non-combat losses of the Corsairs, look like this:

Losses from anti-aircraft artillery fire - 349 vehicles.

Other combat reasons - 230 vehicles.

During non-combat missions - 692 aircraft.

Broken while landing on aircraft carriers - 164 vehicles.

And now the picture is not so rosy. 189 aircraft were lost in aerial battles and 1435 for other reasons. Americans have always been able to count beautifully in their favor, the Corsair is no exception.

It is clear that some things look odd, but "other combat reasons" are mainly the result of air attacks on airfields and aircraft carriers.

But the fact that during non-combat (that is, training and ferry) flights, more aircraft were destroyed than in battles, indicates that the aircraft was not easy to control.

In fact, the way it was, "Corsair" was not a kind of standard carrier-based fighter in terms of control, on the contrary. The control of this aircraft required a very decent training of the pilot, in fact, the figures given above indicate this in the first place.

But whoever mastered this machine received at his disposal a very good and powerful weapon.

Let's give the floor to those who could say the best about the Corsair: the American pilots.

Kenneth Welch, ILC pilot who was the first to shoot down 10 enemy aircraft in the Corsair.

“We received the Corsairs at the end of October 1942. Before leaving for the Pacific Ocean, each of us flew in the Corsair for 20 hours, performed one in-flight shooting and one night flight.

The training program was clearly short, but the need for the presence of the "Corsairs" in the Pacific was felt very urgently. They had to learn in battles. F4F Wildcat fighters were based on Guadalcanal, which, with great difficulty, could still provide the island's air defense, but insufficient range did not allow them to take part in offensive operations.

The Japanese pilots in the Zero played with the Wildcat like a cat and a mouse. Only two American fighters were suitable for offensive operations in the Pacific theater of operations - the Lockheed R-38 Lightning and the Chance Vout F4U-1 Corsair.

My first truly combat mission took place on February 14th. The Japanese were waiting for us then. We escorted the four-engined Liberators again, this time to strike at Kahili airfield. The Japanese Observation and Alert Service detected our aircraft long before approaching the target. Above Kakhili we were met by "Zero". In that battle, we lost two guys from our squadron, in addition, two Liberators, four Lightning and two single-engine P-40 fighters were shot down. The Japanese lost three Zeros, one of which collided with the Corsair in a frontal attack. Our first battle went down in squadron history as "Awful Valentine's Day." A similar flight was planned for the morning of February 15, but it was canceled just before takeoff.

We were the first to receive the Corsairs, no one could explain to us the strengths and weaknesses of the newest fighters, because no one knew them. The first is always difficult, it was necessary to develop the tactics of air battles on the F4U themselves. We knew that after our "Corsairs" many squadrons would enter service, the pilots of which would follow our example. I asked a pilot, who had achieved impressive results in the early days of the battle for Guadalcanal, flying the Wildcat, what he thought of the battles with the Zero. He replied briefly: "You cannot sit on his tail."

I quickly learned that altitude is a key factor in aerial combat. The one who is higher dictates the course of the battle. In this regard, the Zero pilots did not shine - we easily did them in the climb. It took a while, but we came up with effective techniques for air combat with Japanese fighters. On the eve of the meeting with "Zero" I did not feel like a victim anymore. I knew what Zero was and how to deal with them.

In total, I destroyed 21 Japanese aircraft, 17 of them were Zeros. I myself was shot down three times, and always suddenly - I did not see the enemy. Thinking that the Japanese pilots, whom I shot down, did not see me either."

Howard Finn, 1st Lieutenant from the same VMF-124 Squadron:

“When we first started fighting, the Japanese still had experienced flight personnel. These pilots owned the Zero brilliantly, they were turning bends with very small radii. Even Val (dive bomber Aichi D3A - approx.) Once laid such a turn that I could hardly stay on its tail. The low speed did not allow the bomber to escape - I still shot it down.

In February 1943, we fought a dangerous enemy, but then the professional level of the Japanese pilots in general began to decline, their actions became predictable, and the variety of types of maneuvers decreased. Often, having detected our approach, the Japanese with a combat turn were leaving the battle. I have no doubt that in the summer of 1943 the Japanese lost many experienced pilots. The enemy was unable to fill these cadres until the end of the war."

What conclusion can be drawn here?

The F4U Corsair was an iconic aircraft. With fairly decent flight characteristics and standard for an American fighter armament from wing-mounted Browning heavy machine guns.

Difficult to fly, requiring pilot training above average, but with the ability to take everything from him and a little more.

The downside of the "Corsair" can be considered the difficulties in management, statistics figures only confirm this. In one of the following articles, we will try to compare the Hellcat and the Corsair, just to try to figure out which of these aircraft can really be called the best.

As for the video, despite the fact that there are tons of films on the net, I suggest that you watch an educational film on the topic "How to take off in the Corsair." A film guide for dummies of those times, perfectly illustrating the entire technical part of our hero.