Talk:Vought F4U Corsair

Information on Operators is Wrong.
Neither Chile nor Uruguay ever operated F4U Corsairs... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.252.216.6 (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment, User:201.252.216.6. I have added citation needed tags and will check my own sources when I can.  Kablammo (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

"clipped" wings and Royal Navy
The three references to "clipped wings” would be confusing to some readers who are unfamiliar with aircraft carriers. Their understanding would be based on a shorter wingspan rather than the height when the aircraft is in the hanger. I suggest it be explained that the problem is occurs when the wings are folded, because the hanger of British carriers was designed for more compact aircraft. As I write this, I am also avoiding the word “deckhead” which will not be familiar to some readers. Can it be expressed as the height without offending naval ratings? e,g. “The aircraft was too tall” Finally, I must comment that I got a long way into the article before finding information about the Corsair’s service with the Royal Navy. I think it significant that the aircraft was initially rejected by the US Navy but was gladly accepted by the British who were pressed for equipment. It should be mentioned in the introduction that the aircraft was in service with the Fleet Air Arm long before it flew from American carriers, and it was British experience (and lives) which made it manageable. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have a fair number of sources on the Corsair and they do give proper credit to the RN. (I was recently in a museum dedicated to WWII aircraft and the guide did likewise.) This article does also, but perhaps it could be rearranged so the description of RN service comes before the USN carrier section.
 * But the initial USN deployment of Corsairs in the Solomon Islands (VF-17) was land-based, not because of difficulties with the F4-U, but because the Navy did did not want to support two different carrier fighters aboard ship, so the Wildcat was preferred. That changed later in the war. Kablammo (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Line drawing of F4U-1 in section for specifications of F4U-4
Last year an editor confused the F4U-1 with an F4U-4 as the line drawing of the former was located adjacent to the latter, which caused come confusion. I sought to address this by my edits of last July, and moved the line drawing next to -1, the model it represents. The -1 drawing has now been restored to the spec section on the -4. I suggested some alternatives in my last edit summary of July.

We need a solution to avoid this confusion. Kablammo (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The general outline of the F4U-4 is similar enough. Just label the diagram appropriately. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I will leave that to others as I am having problems editing today. Kablammo (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Graeme, thanks for doing that. Kablammo (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The first cited document in our spec section ([Report # 7289 http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-4-detail-specification.pdf]) has drawings of the -4 variant; page 15A shows three views; overhead, side, and head-on. Kablammo (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)