Talk:Vought F4U Corsair/Archive 1

This archive includes threads from Talk:Vought F4U Corsair from the page's creation until January 1st, 2011.

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

Would it be reasonable to change the claim to something like "the Corsair was nicknamed Whistling Death"..." without saying it was the Japanese who called it that - this would probably be true even if it wasn't called it by the Japanese. Nigel Ish 17:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The R-2800 wasn't turbocharged in the Corsair and that note should be removed. AMCKen 06:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)AMCKen 07/08/23

See above, the nickname is an accepted part of the legend of the F4U Corsair. It was used in wartime propaganda and whether it was the creation of an imaginative PR department or can actually be attributed to a Japanese origin is immaterial, the nickname existed. Removing the reference to turbocharging is fine, and perhaps the nickname can appear somewhere else as the first two introductory paragraphs are generally devoted to a precise summary of the aircraft, its history and significance, not an "aside." FWIW Bzuk 14:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC).

I'm sceptical. Part of the legend, perhaps, but how come the allies always named enemy equipment "Zeke", "Messerschmidt" and "Spandau", and not "Killer Wasp", "Howling Reaper" or similar, even when they did get their asses handed to them. Even the Stuka, known to frighten the bejeezus out of allied ground troops early on, is only known as "Stuka". Whilst, according to legend, not a single piece of allied equipment did not get named "Widowmaker", "Silent Death" etc. etc. I bet allied can openers "were said" to be called some sort of cool name. As I said, I am sceptical... I want sources 84.49.158.169 17:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The "whistling death" nickname is most likely Allied PR, rather than a name the Japanese actually used (see also "devil dogs", etc). I could find nothing about the Japanese use of this name online except for one claim that this is what Japanese *ground troops* called the Corsair -- but was the Corsair so much more feared than other Allied planes by ground troops that they give it its own nickname? I doubt it. I could also find no reference to the "whistling death" nickname in Eric Bergerud's excellent book "Fire in the Sky: The Air War in the South Pacific." I've edited the first paragraph to drop the claim about the Japanese. If we wanted to keep something on this nickname, perhaps we could re-insert it in the design and development section? SkipSmith (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the scepticism and supposition expressed here, the term "whistling death" was applied to a number of aircraft in the war years including the F4U Corsair. I have placed some reference sources with the note. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC).

I agree that people have applied the nickname "whistling death" to the F4U. What we're saying is that there is no evidence that the Japanese ever used this term. The reference source you cite is the website I found that claims this term was applied by Japanese ground troops, but there are no Japanese sources (indeed, no sources at all) on this website to back up that claim.

Here is a source that is skeptical about the "Whistling Death" nickname. I agree this nickname was probably made up by an over-eager reporter or Allied PR guy, just like the "Fork-tailed Devil" claim about the P-38 in Germany. Let's leave it in the article for now and get more feedback, but I think we should at the minimum point out that the claim is unverified. This Marine history says that the Japanese "allegedly" nicknamed the F4U "Whistling Death", so maybe we should adopt that language. SkipSmith (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Good enough, not a real "sticking point" to me and it may even eventually fall into the category of urban mythology, nevertheless the term still is applied even now.FWIW Bzuk (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC).

The Beaufighter was nicknamed Whispering Death - due to the sleeve valve engines being unusually quiet when heard from the front of the aircraft compared to poppet valve engines. In the low-level attacks carried out by them the approach of the aircraft often went unnoticed until the aircraft was almost upon the targets. that's why the nickname arose (supposedly) because they couldn't be heard until it was too late. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.251.112 (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

11:1 kill ratio confirmed but can't quite source it

I just heard the 11:1 wartime kill ratio for Corsairs during WWII mentioned on a History Channel program. Unfortunately I can't quite source that yet, but at least I can confirm I've seen it. Will look for other sources. --Edwin Herdman 23:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Source added (although for all opposition - not just Zeros. Nigel Ish 17:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Navy Department figures released in 1945-46, Corsairs were credited with 2,140 Japanese planes shot down in exchange for 189 F4Us lost in air combat. That's 11.3 to one, certainly an exaggeration but that's normal in aerial warfare. B. Tillman 10 July 1007

Propellor blades

I went to an air museum that had one of these, and one of the blades was longer than the other two. Does anyone know why this is, or what its effect was? If interesting, this should be added to the Design and development section.

You're mistaken. If one of the blades was longer, the centripetal forces would tear the propeller off its axis. It was probably just an optical illusion. - Mike

The museum's restoration crew could have put the propellor blade in wrong, making the one longer than the rest. In a static museum display, it doesn't really matter much, as long as people don't notice. Like Mike says, in a working airplane, it matters a whole lot. Or it could have been parallax or illusion... Binksternet 12:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"Greatest aircraft ever built by modern man"?

This bit in the intro seems out of place: "Also it is common knowledge that the F4U is the greatest aircraft ever built by modern man." Joelogon 22:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Longest production run?

The opening paragraph contains "The Corsair served in some air forces until the 1960s, following the longest production run of any piston-engined fighter in history (1940 - 1953)."

Wouldn't the Messerschmitt Bf 109/Hispano Aviacion Ha 1112 be considered as having a longer production run? The original German Bf 109 went into production in 1937, and the Ha 1112 was in production until 1956. Baclightning 19:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Image

Shouldn't there be an image that showes the distinctive wings better at the top of the article? --NoPetrol 19:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Argentinian Corsairs

I have bibiliography (in spanish) that details the career of all the corsairs used by the COAN (COmando Aviacion Naval - Naval Aviation Command) of the ARA (Armada Republica Argentina - Argentine Navy). I need to search thru it to provide the c/n for the ex-ARA aircraft restored to F4U-7 standard that I mention.

Additionally need to provide the link that was the source of the info on the 2 entries I've recently added and the info added to the entry of the ex-argentinian Corsair restored as Lt.Bordelon's plane (I have it registered on a different PC).

Please give me some days to search for that sources/references and add them to the article. Also let me know if it would be useful to upload a picture of any of the ex-argentinian Corsairs mentioned in the article. Many thanks, DPdH 05:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think a brief section about COAN service would be good. One image for the section would be appropriate. Binksternet 13:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

F2G not a variant??

I've re-added the F2G Corsair as a variant of the F4U/FG COrsair, which it most certainly is. Per the F2G page: Using experience from building the fixed-wing FG-1, a version of the folding wing F4U-1 Corsair, in early 1944, Goodyear extensively modified a standard FG-1 airframe, designated the XF2G-1, to take advantage of the 50% increase in take-off power provided by the R-4360 engine. In addition, an all-round vision bubble-type canopy was installed.

Key phrase here: extensively modified a standard FG-1 airframe - Many variants don't even start off that way, and actually have a different wing, fuselage, and other parts, yet they are still variants. The F-82 is a variant of the P-51, and is listed as such in the P-51 article, yet there were hardly any common airframe components. - BillCJ (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur, the F2G is still a Corsair. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 02:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

I would disagree. If it was a variant, it would be FG-xx, not F2G. Am I being too fussy?

On another note, anybody have a free-use pic of the non-production -4X with tiptanks? It's a great look, & it'd be great to have a pic here. Trekphiler (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Designation changes are not always representative of whether or not an aircraft is a variant. Take the FJ-1, FJ-2/3, and FJ-4: inactuallity, they are 3 different, though slightly related aircraft. THe F4U/FG and F2G have far more in comon than the FJ-1 and FJ-2 (basically an F-86 with a tailhook). - BillCJ (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Move "development" related paragraphs into proper section?

It appears to me that there the first four paragraphs under the section "SERVICE United States Navy and Marine Corps", should be moved up into the section called "Design and Development". Those 4 paragraphs talk about the first flights and the testing and seems they properly belong in Design and Development.

As a result, the "United States Navy and Marine Corps" section would begin with the current 5th paragraph which begins with "Carrier qualification trials on the escort carrier...."

Anyone have a problem with moving these four paragraph up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogset (talk • contribs) 16:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Nigel Ish (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to separate the "Development" and "Design" sections at this time, as per the WP:AIR/PC page content guidelines. Just a suggestion, as I'm not a fan of headings for headings sake, if it's not justified by the text. However, given the legth of the section if we add in 4 paragraphs, it might be worth doing it now. - BillCJ (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree in general, but perhaps we should first organize the material chronologically, from the 1938 requirement, through the interactive process of design and testing, to production in 1941-42. (There is overlap and repetition now.) Then follow it with early stateside training by VF-12 and VF-17. Then go to WWII usage (which could be split into subsections for SW Pacific and Central Pacific). I think once there is a proper chronology the section headings (and subheadings, if needed) should be more obvious. Kablammo (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that a lot of information was repeated: The Corsair started life as the result of a U.S. Navy requirement for a carrier aircraft (line 22 under Design) ; the same thing is repeated under "Operational History" In February 1938, the U.S. Navy Bureau of Aeronautics published two requests for proposal, for twin-engined and single-engined fighters. For the single-engined fighter the Navy requested the maximum obtainable speed, and a stalling speed not higher than 70 mph (113 km/h). A range of 1,000 miles (1,610 km) was specified. I've done a rewrite to meld of this information together under "Design". Hopefully things still make sense and needless repetition is avoided.Minorhistorian (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

The following statements have been challenged by an IP contributor:

The Corsair served in some air forces until the 1960s, following the longest production run of any piston-engined fighter in history (1940 - 1953).

and

During World War II, it was the fighter the Japanese feared the most.

The IP editor states that the Me 109 had a longer production run, lasting until 1958. As the claim for the Corsair is challenged, citation needs to be provided, and the call for the citation should remain. (One possible area of inquiry may be whether the Corsair has the longest production run for US aircraft.) See below. Kablammo (talk) 05:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

As to the second claim, it ultimately is a matter of opinion, which should be cited. I modified the statement to read as follows:

Some Japanese pilots regarded it as the most formidable American fighters of World War II.

I cited to the appropriate page of the 1971 Jablonski book. (I do not know if this is the same as a later edition, as I have only the 1971 volume.) Again, a reference is needed if a factual claim is challenged. I edited the statment to a supportable claim; if the former claim is restored there needs to be authority. While I do not doubt the original language, it essentially is unverifiable.

In accordance with Wikipedia:PROVEIT#Burden_of_evidence I will replace the {{cn}} calls if cites are not provided. (Done.) It seems to me however that my suggested edit to the second statement is reasonable and makes a similar point, and that the first claim (on longevity of production run) may have to go, at least as presented now.

The Okumiya and Hirokoshi book (Zero!) gives a Japanese perspective on the respective merits of the Corsair and Hellcat. I quote their comments on the Hellcat at the F6F's talk page; they also praise the Corsair and I will add text here as time allows. Kablammo (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have found a source for the assertion that that the Corsair was in actual production for the longest time of any American fighter, and have modified the intro accordingly. The years are for actual production, not prototypes. Kablammo (talk) 05:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC) According to the reprint of the Pilot's Manual (and another source), the last Corsair came off the line on 24 December 1952, and O'Leary says the last F4U-7 was delivered in January 1953. Kablammo (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

I removed the year 1953 from the Retired field of the infobox, so that field no longer shows. The Corsair was in USN (or at least USNR) usage past the mid-1950s, in French use until 1964, and in actual combat use in Central America until 1969. It may be better to be more specific in the infobox if this field is used (stating the nation and service), or leave this area to the text. Kablammo (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Korean War photograph

There has recently been the addition, deletion, and repeat of a photograph showing the effects of a Corsair used in the attack role in Korea. The plane is virtually invisible in the thumbnail and even at full resolution would not obviously appear to be a Corsair to a lay person. While the photograph is excellent (and appears elsewhere on Wikipedia), perhaps the contributors to this article should discuss why it should, or should not, be included here. Kablammo (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I truly believe User:Thisglad is acting in good faith, but the simple fact of the matter is that this is an article about the aircraft, not the Korean War. Pictures not clearly showing the aircraft are unfortunately of little relevance to this article, despite their obvious relevance to other Korean War related articles. I would not think this picture appropriate for an article on Napalm for the same reasons. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree on all counts. The addition is in good faith, but the aircraft is obscured even at full resolution. The pages for noted aircraft such as the B-17, B-29, Avro Lancaster, Supermarine Spitfire, Junkers Ju 87, and others, are useful comparisons. Kablammo (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I concede that Image:Koreacloseairsupport1950napalm.jpg would work better in an article about the Korean war or close air support. It doesn't actually appear in any such WP articles, as far as I can tell. Binksternet (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Unit Cost

I assume the cost is what the Corsair would cost today in modern times. Perhaps it should instead state it's cost during each year/war (or at least WW2) it operated in and what it would cost in 2007 (inflation). Should include a source. 76.191.143.60 (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sikorsky

Can someone provide a source for Igor Sikorsky's contribution to the F4U design? ANA607 (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)ANA607

Arresting hook claim

Re: the Corsair arresting-hook-as-cable-cutter claim. Popular Mechanics attributed the mission to U.S. Marine pilot George E. Mouzakis, but as the article is about Corsairs, I felt it was more appropriate to leave this flyer's name out of the sentence. If anyone feels the urge to rewrite the sentence to include him, be my guest. Rob Rosenberger (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Eventful maiden flight?

In the Development section, a paragraph ends with "The first flight of the XF4U-1 was made on May 29, 1940, with Lyman A. Bullard, Jr. at the controls. The maiden flight was eventful, although a hurried landing was made when the elevator trim tabs failed because of flutter.[6][7]" By the construction, it would seem that "uneventful" was intended.

Neither 'eventful' nor 'uneventful' are descriptive enough to deserve a place in the sentence. Just say what happened and let the reader decide! Me, I think a hurried landing from elevator failure is definitely not a ho-hum flight. Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Why the bent wing?

The article mentions "it was difficult to fit undercarriage struts long enough to provide sufficient clearance for the large propeller." However, numerous airplanes employing the same engine didn't resort to a bent wing. At www.schultzairshows.com one can find this comment: "The bent wing design came about as a solution to the problem of designing strong enough landing gear because a straight wing would have necessitated very long undercarriage legs to keep the huge propeller clear of the ground, hardly desirable characteristic for a carrier-based aircraft. Another bonus of the cranked wing design was minimizing the height of the folded wing." This is a more satisfying explanation, although it doesn't address the fact that Grumman managed to use the same engine in the F6F and F8F without concerns over landing gear length. Regardless, does anyone have a reference which gives more detail into the early design decisions on this plane? KarlWK (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

3 April 2009 Edit

"Bzuk his is the lede, two paragraphs are standard, and removing cited statements is not usual) (undo)"

I think that when I deleted this it was not in the lead(lede) but was randomly in the middle of the legacy section. Where you put it, it makes perfect sense.

I don't understand the removing cited statements part, are you saying if I stick a cite tag on something it should never be changed. I haven't edited much so I still don't know all the rules.

Be Bold In Edits (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

BeBold (great name, and you live up to it!): This article needs both copyediting and reorganization, as discussed above, and it is good to see more work on this piece. It would be best to leave in citations for important facts. If, as here, similar facts are covered in two places, either leave in the cited version, or transfer the cites to other place where the same fact is asserted. That's not to say you can't remove cited text; but if you remove it because it is duplicative of other text, just transfer the cite to the remaining place where the fact is asserted.

I'm sure you will find that folks will collaborate with you in improving the article. (And I don't know where the word "lede" came from, it appears to be newsroom argot, but it is often used on Wikipedia.) Regards, Kablammo (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

BeBold, we are on the "same page," and a much appreciated edit change! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC).

Fleet Air Arm

Would it be significant enough to note in the operational history section that the British Fleet Air Arm used the F4U on carriers before the US navy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.55.231 (talk) 02:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's already there under Royal Navy: "The Royal Navy cleared the F4U for carrier operations well before the U.S. Navy and showed that the Corsair Mk II could be operated with reasonable success even from escort carriers." - BillCJ (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

• Agree I agree that there is no need to have a separate article on the XF4U Corsair(s). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC).

Kill ratio statistics, Barber's table

The kill ratio statistic is inaccurate and at times seemingly arbitrary. A critical footnote to table 28 states that "the bulk of those [F6F and F4F] reported as destroyed by unidentified types, amounting to one-fourth of the total." (Barber pg 77, notes to table 28). If you were to take the table prima facie, both the Hellcat and F4U had 0 losses to the N1K "George." Hence, I don't even see how a 13:1 ratio can be stated for the George, when the table shows 7:0. You'd also have to completely disregard official reports of conflicts between N1Ks and Hellcats for example (such as one with Muto).

According to Barber, the F4U losses were "arbitrarily prorated among the various single engine enemy fighter types," and as such it's better to state the losses as combined for the George, Frank and Jack, which is what exactly Barber does on page 77. Listing the kill ratio for each is not only unjustifiable given the degree to which the losses were unaccounted for, but the numbers themselves don't match up with what's listed on table 28. Using Barber is fine, but drawing new conclusions that aren't stated by Barber is not. Sugaki (talk) 05:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Aéronavale as primary user

why France is not noted as "primary user" since the F4U mk.7 was specially built for the French Aéronavale? Cliché Online (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The infobox information as to users is based on the number of aircraft in service, with the USN/US Marines flying thousands of the type, the Royal Navy operating 605 Corsairs and the Royal New Zealand Air Force had 424 Corsairs compared to the Aéronavale's 163 aircraft. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC).