Talk:F4U Corsair

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Maritime warfare task force Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Related task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Related task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	Aviation Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.See comments
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related WikiProjects and/or task forces: Aircraft WikiProject

Contents 1 Whistling death 2 Corsair claim 3 Pic 4 Bordelon's victories 5 Comparison with Hellcat 6 Explanation for the removal of the Indonesian entry in the Operator list 7 Football War

[edit] Whistling death

There's about half a dozen aircraft people claim to have carried that nickname. I'm yet to see a credible source for any one of these. As anyone who has seen a real radial in their life can attest, a non-turbosupercharged radial-engined aircraft does anything but whistle. The nickname stays off until someone can cite a primary source for it. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 21:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I've seen an F2G, and it whistles because of the huge, low RPM prop. Also, there's a book on Amazon called Whistling Death: The Test Pilot's Story of the F4U Corsair. You probably can safely put it back. ericg ✈ 23:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The claim was specifically that the Japanese called it that (and Goodyear Corsairs are very different birds than F4Us). I'd like to see a Japanese source confirming that claim (and another Japanese source confirming it for the Beaufighter, and another Iraqi source for A-10, and so on...). - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not the engine that makes it whistle, it's the wing-root oil coolers and induction. The airflow through them then out the underwing vents makes a definite whistling sound at high airspeed and high RPM. Anyone who's been to an air race featuring Corsairs can attest to the sound.

68.178.65.194 02:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corsair claim

The statement by user: 71.213.190.247: "Although this type of kill is seen in movies and fiction of air combat in World War I, it is the only know (sic) kill of this type in the modern era." is not true. Ramming was first used by the Russian pilot, Pyotr Nesterov, on 8 September 1914, against an Austrian plane. That incident was fatal to both parties. Ramming was also used in the Spanish Civil War.

In World War II, ramming (Russian/Polish name: taran) became a legendary technique of VVS pilots against the Luftwaffe, especially in the early days of the hostilities in the war's Eastern Front. In the first year of the war, the Soviet machines were considerably inferior to the German ones and the taran was sometimes perceived as the only way to guarantee the destruction of the enemy. Trading an outdated fighter to a technologically advanced bomber was considered a good trade. In some cases, heavily wounded pilots or in damaged aircraft decided to perform a suicidal taran attack against air, ground or naval targets, similar to kamikaze. The first taran attack in World War II was carried out by the Polish pilot, Lt. Col. Leopold Pamuła with his damaged PZL P.11c on 1 September 1939, over Łomianki near Warsaw.

Nine rammings took place on the very first day of German invasion of the Soviet Union. About 200 (some estimates give the number closer to 500) taran attacks were made by Soviets between the beginning of Operation Barbarossa and the middle of 1943 when enough modern aircraft had been produced to make the tactic obsolete, even if Russian fighter pilots still were trained to perform it. Lieutenant Boris Kovzan survived the record of four ramming attacks in the war. Alexander Khlobytsev made three. Seventeen other Soviet pilots were credited with two successful ramming attacks. The Japanese also practiced ramming-example a B-17 brought down in May 8, 1942

Bzuk 14:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pic

I really like the pic of the French Corsair better. The US Navy Corsair may be more representative of origin and usage and all that, but it's certainly not a better photo.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bordelon's victories

The article said three La-11s and two Yak-18s (one Tu-2 was listed as a probable). with no cited source. My source (see article) says 2 Yak-18s and 3 Po-2s. If anyone can verify this against another credible source, that would be much appreciated. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 22:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison with Hellcat

The fifth paragraph of the Service section (starting Those who insist ... ) is completely out of place. It splits up a two paragraphs dealing with Marine use. The paragraph seems more appropriate for an enthusiasts' discussion forum than a history of the aircraft. Is it really needed in the article? Kablammo 13:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I always felt that this was an awkward section that deals with the Hellcat vs Corsair debate but was loathe to simply remove it until it came up in discussion. Let's see what other editors think and maybe it can be revised but my initial impression is that it is out of place in this section. Bzuk 14:311, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Glad to have you aboard. If it remains it should be moved, but I would take it out entirely. Let's give the discussion a week to develop.

You have a lot of good contributions to the article. Do you agree that it needs a rewrite? Things are out of chronological order, even in the service history section; the plane's idiosyncratic handling characteristics are mentioned in no fewer than four places; and the section on model planes may belong in a separate article. Kablammo 16:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed this before, but I agree with both assesments. Both aircraft had their own strengths and weaknesses, as the quote attempts to point out, but as stated it's really just POV observations. If a quote can be found from a aviation professional which backs up the statements, then let's put in the quote. - BillCJ 16:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There were some tests done to compare the Corsair with other planes, both US and enemy (including the FW190, which it never was likely to encounter); I'll locate those. Maybe we can start a sandbox page for this article to work on this. On the Hellcat, look at Talk:F6F_Hellcat; where I quote Japanese authors of a book about the Zero (the work is in English). Those authors also assess the Corsair, and call it the first plane they encoutered which clearly surpassed the Zeke. I can add a quote but given the disorganization of the article I'm not sure where it should go. Kablammo 16:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation for the removal of the Indonesian entry in the Operator list

I figure I'll put a more detail explanation of why I removed it entirely in here, so if people feel the need to debate it we can. The theory presented was that following the Dutch police action in the then Dutch East Indies, a number of Corsairs were "saved" and put into service with the newly formed Indonesian Air Force. Of the participants that I am aware of (Dutch East Indies Army Aviation - KNIL-ML and Dutch Naval Aviation - MLD, as well as, the RAF and RAAF), none except for the RAAF ever operated Corsairs in this theatre. The only RAAF units participating were 18 and 20 Squadrons, which were in fact Dutch East Indies units which had operated with the RAAF during the war. Both of these units operated B-25s. The British Fleet Air Arm, the only user of the Corsair in the British military, was not deployed. So, while I can find pictures of some of the last operations conducted by RAF P-47s, I see no indication that there were any Cosairs in theatre. If this is the case, then where did those saved come from? Especially seeing as I've never seen any evidence of Indonesian Corsairs ever. This all leads me to believe their was some confusion somewhere along the line between Corsairs and P-51 Mustangs, of which a number were in fact saved by the fledgling Indonesian Air Force from the Dutch. -- Thatguy96 18:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Football War

Is it just me, or does it take longer to read that section than the war lasted!? Seems like way to much info on on event than necessary in an aircraft article. Maybe most of this should be moved to the article on the war itself, especially given to research and work put into the section. Comments? - BillCJ 23:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)