Four low passes: Warhawk, Mustang, Coursair and Spitfire:
(Sorry, no Seafury)
A blog by a "sucker" and a "loser" who served her country in the Navy.
If you're one of the Covidiots who believe that COVID-19 is "just the flu",
that the 2020 election was stolen, or
especially if you supported the 1/6/21 insurrection,
leave now.
Slava Ukraini!
Sunday, November 22, 2020
10 comments:
House Rules #1, #2 and #6 apply to all comments. Rule #3 also applies to political comments.
In short, don't be a jackass. THIS MEANS YOU!
If you never see your comments posted, see Rule #7.
All comments must be on point and address either the points raised in the blog post or points raised by commenters in response.
Any comments that drift off onto other topics are subject to deletion.
(Please don't feed the trolls.)
中國詞不評論，冒抹除的風險。僅英語。
COMMENT MODERATION IS IN EFFECT UFN. This means that if you are an insulting dick, nobody will ever see it.
Oooo...
ReplyDeleteIt's so weird seeing a Corsair in Europe!
ReplyDeleteMark, the Royal Navy operated Corsairs (at least one was captured by the Luftwaffe after a forced landing) and the French Navy operated them into the 1960s.
ReplyDeleteThe spit pilot was way low. Eric 'Winkle' Brown believed the Corsair, though potent and effective, was a hazard for the average service pilot and never would have been cleared for use except in wartime-bouncy gear and terrible visibility. Yet the Brits chopped the wingtips, fiddled with the gear, and flew them off their little (armored flight deck) carriers long before the USN did. Brave boys.
ReplyDeletePeppa says, "Perfectly Splendid!"
ReplyDeleteThe Corsair even has the markings used by the British Far East Fleet (or whatever they called their PacFleet/ TF57).
ReplyDeleteGreat video and four distinctly different 'sounds'. The Corsair was designed to be effective in the air. That it sucked on the ground wasn't unusual. Aircraft designed to fly off carriers HAD to have gear that was more robust and had greater range of movement (bounce), due to carrier landings. A more current example would be the F-4 Phantoms flown by the Navy and the Air Force, there was something like 500lbs difference in zero fuel weight due to beefier gear on the Navy version, and a MUCH stronger tail hook.
ReplyDeleteThe Corsair was in production for thirteen years. I don't know of a jet fighter that was in production that long until maybe the Phantom, certainly the Tomcat and Eagle.
ReplyDeleteI don't know of any prop fighters in production that long. Wow.
ReplyDelete-Didn't the USAF F-4s have a shorter nose?
A lot of the Corsair's problems stemmed from requirements changing faster than aircraft could be designed for them. The gull wing was meant to squeeze the last possible knot out of an R-2800. But it was designed with .30 cal guns, and then the Spanish Civil War showed those wouldn't work.
ReplyDeleteSo the Navy spec'ed .50 cals, but what with the folding mechanism and the extra spar structure, the wing was full and some gas would have to go in the fuselage, at the CG of course -- precisely where the pilot was. So the pilot had to move back three feet, with that big-ass engine way out in front.
If they'd had the time for a do-over, I'll bet that airplane would have come out looking a LOT different.