JoeBThe only speed figures for the Venom that 1. I ever saw was the 640mph at sea level that’s claimed. In that respect, it was faster than the MiG-15, which wasn’t the best low/medium altitude fighter of its time, being designed as an interceptor. At sea level, the MiG-15 is claimed to have a speed of “only” 590mph. Of course, the F-86F had a speed at that same altitude of over 680mph.
2. Problem is for the Venom if it was used against the MiG, I’d bet that it’s performance would drop off (like the Vampire did) above 20-30,000 ft, and the performance drop off would be almost like the single stage Allison V-12s during World War II, which were set up for low alt. work, which allowed P-40s and for sure early P-51 Mustangs to perform as well or even better than many Axis fighters in low altitude theaters
1.That speed for MiG-15 at sea level is not correct. The MiG-15bis (main model in Korea, though some earlier RD-45’s powered MiG-15’s were also used) reached its maximum speed at sea level, like most non-afterburning jet fighters, 1076km/h=668mph. The F-86F did not have anything like a 90mph speed advantage over the MiG-15bis, at any altitude.
2. The drivers of altitude performance of the early jets were different than with WWII prop fighters. All non-afterburning jet engines of that era had max thrust at s/l and it steadily decreased with altitude. There were no comparable characteristics like different speeds and stages of mechanical or exhaust driven superchargers whereby some piston engines held their power a lot better in thinner air; all non afterburning jet engines lost power with altitude in a relatively comparable manner.
The difference in altitude performance among jet a/c of that time was mainly driven by different drag characteristics with altitude, rather than different rate of loss of thrust with altitude. Straight wings suffered an earlier and greater increase in drag at high (subsonic) Mach, and of course Mach number increased with altitude for a given speed. The poorer performance of straight wings v swept wings at altitude was principally due to that, not greater decline in thrust of their engines. And even among swept wing jets, the F-86’s lower drag rise at high Mach conferred an advantage over the MiG at high altitude in a dive. OTOH the MiG’s higher thrust/weight ratio conferred an advantage for it in *getting* to high altitudes; and it was also superior to near contemporary Western straight wings in that respect. So a MiG could almost always enter combat above an F-86, but the F-86 (especially E and later) could still usually dive away, even from a MiG attacking from above. Any straight wing OTOH would be highly constrained by Mach drag rise, or even limiting Mach in a dive from high altitude. So it couldn’t climb with the MiG (generally inferior thrust/weight), couldn’t outrun it (more Mach drag rise and inferior thrust weight), couldn’t outdive it (more Mach drag rise), and even its turning ability advantage would be limited, because again the MiG had better thrust to maintain more G. Therefore the straight wing was ‘sh*t out of luck’ v the MiG-15 in the Korean War high altitude air superiority role. This would have been marginally less true of the Venom compared to some other straight wings, but only marginally. Down at sea level the straightwing was in a relatively better position, though the MiG also gained thrust at s/l, all non-AB jets did.
Joe
JoeBThe issue with the Venom vs say the F-86 and the MiG-15 is that the Venom had competitive climb rates in the single seat versions, was very maneuverable, but by the time that the Venom reached production, 640mph wasn’t anything special.
The MiG and the F-86, depending on the variant, were about 40 or so mph faster than the Venom. I’d bet that the Venom could probably out maneuver the F-86 or the MiG in a turning dogfight, just as the Meteor or Vampire probably could.
The matchup between straight and swept wing jet fighters depended heavily on altitude in a predictable way not quite like the varying speed/altitude capabilities of WWII prop fighter or later jets. Near sea level a plane like the Venom would just have a 40 mph (or perhaps a bit less) speed disadvantage v F-86 or MiG-15. In a higher altitude engagement, the speed gap would not only widen but the straightwing would be much more tightly constrained by Mach limit in any dive, especially compared to mid and later F-86 models that would dive through Mach 1 routinely. This put the straight wing at a servere disadvantage, as shown by the attempt to use the Meteor in the high altitude air superiority role alongside the F-86 in Korea. As low altitude fighter bombers defending themselves, or directly escorting other low altitude fb’s, a/c like F-80, F-84, F9F and Meteor could be reasonably competitive with the MiG. But in the max altitude-seeking air superiority role of the pre-missile jet era, to clear out the MiG’s or keep them too busy to harass fighter bombers, the straight wings couldn’t compete. It wouldn’t be basically different for the Venom IMO.
Joe
JoeBAll engagements between MiG-15’s and F3D’s in Korea occurred at night, as already mentioned. So, aerodynamic performance measures were secondary except, F3D’s could not close from behind on MiG’s which were going at full speed, and F3D’s pursued by MiG’s had to evade rather than outrun them.
Maybe this is where the ‘manueverability’ point comes from, but it wasn’t as if the F3D’s were out turning the MiG’s in a daylight dogfight. Rather, the MiG’s generally relied on ground control radar and searchlights to find the US targets (primarily B-29’s the US nightfighters were trying to protect) and were unlikely to be able to follow a target into a sharp turn and maintain visual contact, even if the MiG was aerodynamically capable of it.
The much bigger difference was that the F3D had AI radar, and this was not deployed on MiG-15’s in Korea. Also, the F3D had a tail warning radar, a distinct advantage it held over the USAF F-94B which was also used on similar missions. But OTOH the MiG’s ground control radars were much closer to the actions, typically near the Yalu, and again they were supported by (also radar directed) searchlights. The US nightfighters were also supported by their own ground control radars, but they were further away.
F3D’s were credited with 5 MiG-15’s destroyed in night combat, however only one of those is unambiguously confirmed in Soviet accounts; at least one other that was claimed destroyed was seriously damaged; one incident where both MiG’s and F3D’s claimed a victory, and Soviet and Chinese ground forces observed an a/c fall in flames, is a mystery so far since neither side reported a loss in its then-secret records, as far as I’ve been able to determine.
One F3D, of a USN detachment operating with the main USMC F3D unit VMF(N)-513 , was believed by the US to have been destroyed by MiG’s based on radio transmissions from the crew before the a/c disappeared, early hours of July 2, 1953. However, there is no Soviet or Chinese claim for such a victory. This is highly unusual. AFAIK every other single loss of UN a/c in air combat in Korea is matched by a known claim on the other side (usually more than one, often a lot more!). The 298th Fighter Regiment (Soviet night MiG unit at the time) recorded operations and claims in this general period but not that night, known Chinese accounts only claim one MiG night victory by them during the war (corresponding to an unsuccessful attack recorded by an F-94), and the NK’s are not believed to have operated MiG’s as nightfighters during the war.
Minor point, the F3D version used in Korea was F3D-2.
Joe
JoeBAll engagements between MiG-15’s and F3D’s in Korea occurred at night, as already mentioned. So, aerodynamic performance measures were secondary except, F3D’s could not close from behind on MiG’s which were going at full speed, and F3D’s pursued by MiG’s had to evade rather than outrun them.
Maybe this is where the ‘manueverability’ point comes from, but it wasn’t as if the F3D’s were out turning the MiG’s in a daylight dogfight. Rather, the MiG’s generally relied on ground control radar and searchlights to find the US targets (primarily B-29’s the US nightfighters were trying to protect) and were unlikely to be able to follow a target into a sharp turn and maintain visual contact, even if the MiG was aerodynamically capable of it.
The much bigger difference was that the F3D had AI radar, and this was not deployed on MiG-15’s in Korea. Also, the F3D had a tail warning radar, a distinct advantage it held over the USAF F-94B which was also used on similar missions. But OTOH the MiG’s ground control radars were much closer to the actions, typically near the Yalu, and again they were supported by (also radar directed) searchlights. The US nightfighters were also supported by their own ground control radars, but they were further away.
F3D’s were credited with 5 MiG-15’s destroyed in night combat, however only one of those is unambiguously confirmed in Soviet accounts; at least one other that was claimed destroyed was seriously damaged; one incident where both MiG’s and F3D’s claimed a victory, and Soviet and Chinese ground forces observed an a/c fall in flames, is a mystery so far since neither side reported a loss in its then-secret records, as far as I’ve been able to determine.
One F3D, of a USN detachment operating with the main USMC F3D unit VMF(N)-513 , was believed by the US to have been destroyed by MiG’s based on radio transmissions from the crew before the a/c disappeared, early hours of July 2, 1953. However, there is no Soviet or Chinese claim for such a victory. This is highly unusual. AFAIK every other single loss of UN a/c in air combat in Korea is matched by a known claim on the other side (usually more than one, often a lot more!). The 298th Fighter Regiment (Soviet night MiG unit at the time) recorded operations and claims in this general period but not that night, known Chinese accounts only claim one MiG night victory by them during the war (corresponding to an unsuccessful attack recorded by an F-94), and the NK’s are not believed to have operated MiG’s as nightfighters during the war.
Minor point, the F3D version used in Korea was F3D-2.
Joe
JoeBI have the Command Diary for VMF(N)-513 for July 1953. On pg C-1 it says:
“On July 21 a Royal Air Force Night Fighter team joined the squadron as part of an exchange program”
According to the list of missions in the report, they seem to have flown only one mission during the war, night of July 26-27:
FltLt Bennett RAF
FltLt Almond RAF
[call sign] Whipsaw 1210 TO 2130, Target 2149-2230, Landing 2341
F3D-2, NCAP XD area [a little south of Yalu and most over Yellow Sea] Controller: Kodak. Negative vectors or contacts.
The armistice was signed the next day. IOW yes, 5 MiG’s was a joke. I didn’t see the men’s first names or initials mentioned anywhere in the report.
Joe
JoeBI seem to remember something written by a defected NK Mig pilot to the effect that the NK pilots received combat training in China in Mig-9s/Yak-15/17s (he described straight wings & engine(s) under the forward fuselage).
Their early combat sorties were from Chinese airfields, as those in NK were damaged by USAF B-29 strikes.
In the first year or so of the war, most of the Mig-15s encountered by UN forces were piloted by Russians, with the NK pilots only starting to get them in 1951.
The defector, No Kum-sok never mentioned NK MiG-9’s in his book. The NK’s and Chinese were trained on two seat Yak-17UTI’s, in China, per many sources, but there’s no evidence that type was ever used within NK during the war. Chinese fighter units also had MiG-9’s, but as mentioned, they never claim to have used them over Korea.
The early combat sorties of the first NK MiG-15 unit were actually from Uiju, NK. This was noticed at the time by UN side: in November 1951 MiG’s appeared for the first time on a field inside NK. This was No’s unit. F-86’s strafed some of these a/c on the ground, their only official ground claims, as related in both US records and No’s book. Eventually B-29 night bombing of the field forced the NK unit to relocate to Antung across the Yalu along with the Soviet and Chinese MiG-15 units, as also related by No in “A MiG-15 to Freedom”.
The initial fighter outfit of the KPAAF (‘North Korean AF’) was entirely composed of Yak-9P’s (postwar all metal version) and a few remaining Yak-9M’s (1944 production, left behind by occupying Soviet AF units in late 40’s)though it’s not clear the latter were ever used in combat. A large volume of KPAAF documents were captured when NK was invaded later in 1950; daily flight schedules, maintenance records, pilot’s individual flight logs etc. mainly from just before the war. No other fighter types show up in any of those documents, whereas the order of battle of Yak-9’s can be determined pretty much down to the individual a/c.
There were some supposed US sightings of Yak jet types in the early months (pre-MiG-15 period, June-Oct 1950) as well as Lavochkin types, P-39/63, P-51, etc. mentioned in US combat reports and summaries, MiG-9’s I don’t recall ever seeing mentioned in that period. But the non-Yak-9 fighter sightings in the early months were almost surely mistaken (with exception of P-63’s strafed on Oct 2 1950, those were Soviet, the F-80’s had crossed into the USSR, as they later realized). And there are no official aerial victories v fighters in the pre-MiG-15 period except Yak-9 and La-7; the La-7’s were probably Yak-11’s. The NK’s had an operational unit of La-9’s by April 1951 (per Soviet documents) but none early in the war.
As the war went on, there were various sightings of what were believed to be straigtwing jets, sometimes identified as possible MiG-9’s, though often at night when identification was a lot less certain. That’s why I asked if there was a solid source about MiG-9’s in the KPAAF. It’s still an unknown, I don’t think we can just assume it. Standard Russian works on the MiG-9 don’t mention it, nor their known documents about aid to NK, and there’s no conclusive evidence of it in US records.
Joe
JoeBThe other early Russian jet which was highly respected was the Yak-9 which by the Korean War was only just being replaced by the MiG-15 in Soviet use but was given to the Chinese in large numbers, thus operated by North Korea initially. These used twin remanufactured BMW-003 (RD-20) and again were noted not just for their manoeuvrability, but excellent reliability despite a problem with the NS-37 gun mounting.
The jet as mentioned was the MiG-9; the initial fighter outfit of the North Koreans was the prop Yak-9; unless you have a source saying the MiG-9 was ever provided to North Korea, that would be interesting. Chinese MiG-9’s were not used in the Korean War according to any Chinese account that I know of. American accounts mention Communist straight wing jet a/c sighted on various occasions, but could just be wrong, or perhaps captured F-80’s (several accounts specifically insist enemy F-80’s were sighted).
Joe
JoeBThanks for your input Joe.
Another possible reason perhaps for the ‘damaged by flak’ claim could also be down to pilot McCarthy not realising he had infact been engaged by another aircraft, and not the outcome of a cover up.
I agree that possibility couldn’t be ruled out while ‘cover up’ should only be used IMO as a working theory when there’s real evidence of it, and it’s assumed or claimed too often. There are hardly any documented cases of any AF falsely recording its own losses in its own records. Press release type statements made during a war have sometimes been shown to have downplayed losses (clearly shown in the then-secret records) but it’s again rare AFAIK for them to mention a loss then make up a phoney cause for it.
In case of Korea (Sincov, or Sintsov, also flew combat and made claims in Korea, it so happens) it’s also often alleged that Soviet overclaims are, if not explained by US ‘cover ups’, then similarly explained by a/c whose pilots believed they were downed by flak, engine failures, etc but who were really downed by MiG’s. This *very* seldom pans out if you compare the actual records. The times or places or circumstances of attempted matches of Soviet air combat claims to US AA or operational losses are almost always different; and the claims almost always match a combat recorded in US records at similar time, place and circumstances, where the Soviets just over claimed.
I think the original published source of the MiG-17 v Wyvern case is an article in the Russian language magazine Aviamaster, No. 1 2002 “Red Falcons v the Musketeers” (see link). It says that this incident occurred at noon 3 Nov v lone Wyvern, Sintsov and another unnamed pilot, admitting there is no documentation. McCarthy’s a/c was lost on a mission with launch time 0720 (all details per “Wings Over Suez” pp.273-4). The book doesn’t say what timezone but it seems at most it would differ from 2 hours from Cairo time (if 0720 is time Zulu). The Wyvern wasn’t by itself when hit on its bomb run, and the other members of the flight circled McCarthy after he landed in the water, so apparently the a/c was never alone. I’m not ruling it out: it’s possible Sintsov mis-recalled the details and they actually match better if recalled correctly, but I remain skeptical for now.
JoeBI’ve also read the “Wings” account and heard the Soviet pilot’s claim, which from all I know is a personal claim, not one for which he provided any documentation.
I don’t see any reason to believe the account in Cull’s book was the product of any ‘cover up’. For one thing any MiG sighted would probably have been assumed to be Egyptian, like the other opposing airborne a/c which were fleetingly sighted during that operation. I also don’t see any reason or evidence the British force would set itself up as ‘invincible’ and deny incidents of air combat or losses.
Re: Carmichael, that’s a rather different situation of press release-type version of events repeated ever since. The more complicated view of credit for the claim was not just expressed by personal claim of somebody else much later, but is strongly implied by the original combat report, see John P. Landsdowne, “With the Carriers in Korea” which reproduces it. It was probably just considered a simpler story for publicity purposes to credit one pilot, and ‘Hoagy’, what a cool nickname. It also wasn’t emphasized, if mentioned at all, that a Sea Fury was also (basically) lost to a MiG that day, hit and belly landed on a UN held island off NK coast. But that’s also quite plain in the combat report. Anyway the most interesting question about that incident wrt latter day info is whether the other side really lost a MiG. Chinese accounts of apparently the same combat claim several Sea Furies and don’t mention any MiG losses.
Also Korea is instructive in that a number of personal accounts by Soviet pilots there are not supported in Soviet records. For example the claim by Boris Abakumov to have downed an F-86 piloted by a Major Crown, who was captured, is repeated in a number of English language of books (like Yefim Gordon’s book[s] about the MiG-15), and sometimes used to introduce the concept of the USAF ‘covering up’ air combat losses in Korea to the extent of wiping out the existence of pilots lost there, since there was no Major Crown lost in Korea per the USAF. But it’s clear from Soviet and US records and other Soviet first hand accounts that that was a ‘sea story’ by Abakumov, combining two separate incidents, loss of an F-86 to fuel exhaustion April 3 ’51 (Abakumov’s claim against ‘Crown’ was April 6) where the wreck was found by the NK’s or Chinese (not inspected by the Soviets, and no firm evidence it was anything but fuel exhaustion); plus the loss of Capt William Crone June 18, 1951. Crone was downed off the coast by Soviet MiG’s, though not by Abakumov, almost surely killed though officially MIA. Another Soviet pilot told a story of having met a US pilot downed at that time, and being told by the pilot that he flew for the Luftwaffe in WWII! But several other pilots gave the less exciting version that they were simply shown Crone’s ID card which had been recovered from the water or washed ashore.
I would be more inclined to doubt the “Wings” account of the Wyvern loss, and give credence to the air combat loss theory, if somebody produced an official Soviet report dealing with it. If it happened, or the Soviets believed at an official level that it had happened, then such a report surely exists.
Joe
JoeBHere’s a couple of photo’s of the SX-1, ‘Seohae’ which was a real plane.
from:
http://www.emuseum.go.kr/pages/portal/search/full.jsp?dbNoArr=3&docNo=00025109
writing on photo: Single engine flying boat (SX-1) test flight achieved June 14, 1954 Navy Capt Jo Gyeong-yeon.
Both pages give a summary of development, not detailed stats of the plane.
The May 2004 edition of the Korean language magazine “Aerospace and Defense” had an article on the early Korean a/c which also included naval a/c SX-3 ‘Jehae’ and SX-5 ‘Tonghae’, but I don’t have the article, just saw it referred to here:
http://www.wasco.co.kr/bbs/view.php?id=report&page=31&sn1=&divpage=1&sn=off&ss=on&sc=on&select_arrange=headnum&desc=asc&no=9&PHPSESSID=0c2ea22ea3f7dc967f611ac579a566f0
Here’s an English language page on the ‘Buhwal’ type a/c.
http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2894654
-ho means something like ‘number’, or ‘type’ when appended to the name of something like an a/c, tank, etc. The naval a/c would also be Seohaeho, etc. Transliterations of Korean words to latin letters have varied over time, and DPRK and ROK don’t use the same system now. I’m using the year 2000 ROK system.
Joe
JoeB1. from most accounts it ended up balanced at ‘5 All’ with numerous aircraft damaged along the way.
2. There is a tremendous book released last year, “The Forgotten Few” by GCAPT(ret’d) Doug Hurst.
1. The Meteor victory credits and losses in Korea, that I know, are pretty simple:
December 1 1951: 4 Meteors lost to MiG’s, 2 MiG’s destroyed credited to Meteors. The opponent was the Soviet 176 Guards Fighter Regiment which claimed 12 Meteors without loss.
May 8, 1952: Meteors were credited with 1 MiG destroyed for no loss. The opponent was the PLAAF 45th Fighter Regiment which actually lost 2 a/c with 2 others damaged, claiming 3 Meteors.
October 2 1952: Meteor downed without claim, Soviets claimed 1.
The first two combats had the only ‘destroyed’ credits by Meteors AFAIK, and there’s no evidence any of their other probable/damaged or unofficial credits (which some accounts add, or add some of, to the Meteors’ total) resulted in MiG losses. The MiG’s claimed loads of Meteors, Soviets 28 total, Chinese apparently another 8.
So, I think 2:5 is fairly well documented, though other kills couldn’t be 100% ruled out. I misrecalled above that the 3 destroyed credits were all against the Soviets: 2 were v the Soviets denied in their accounts, 1 was v the Chinese but actually 2 in their accounts.
2. That’s interesting, I’ll probably get it. Another is “Escape from North Korea” by Ron Guthrie, one of the 77 Sdn Meteor pilots downed by the Soviets. It described his flying and POW time, he didn’t actually escape.
Joe
JoeBThis page has info on the RAF/RCAF pilots who flew tours with F-86 units, may be limited to those who received credit for at least MiG’s ‘damaged’:
http://www.britains-smallwars.com/korea/air-war.html
Another RAF pilot who flew F-86’s in combat wrote about it was Colin Downes; his book “By the Skin of My Teeth” came out a couple of years ago, also covers his experiences as Mustang pilot in WWII and post Korea career.
Re RAAF but no RAF fighter units in Korea a better question might why the RAAF deployed Meteors as air combat a/c, which they started out as. This only confirmed that the Meteor was outclassed by the MiG-15 in high altitude combat, a fairly predictable result but some doubt would have remained otherwise. So it arguably undermined the deterrent value of all other Western Meteor units v the Soviets in bigger Cold War picture, out of proportion to anything that could have been achieved by one sdn in Korea. The 77Sdn Meteors claimed 3 MiG’s in their period of air superiority work in 1951 but Soviet accounts of those combats don’t reflect those losses (do reflect the combats, all were against Soviet AF MiG’s). 5 Meteors were downed by Soviet AF MiG’s. Later the Meteors downed 2 PLAAF MiG’s in low altitude combat defending themselves as fighter bombers, though they *weren’t* credited as confirmed destroyed. The losses are mentioned in official published Chinese accounts. So the Meteor’s overall record was apparently 2:5 v the MiG-15 in Korea. The MiG’s claimed a vastly greater number of Meteors, 20-some IIRC.
The Sea Fury v MiG-15 combat of August 9 1952 is also mentioned in published Chinese accounts. The 16 MiG’s in the general area (which clashed with more than one Sea Fury formation) were from the 7th and 52nd Fighter Regiments, PLAAF. They claimed 2 ‘FMK-8’ but don’t mention any losses; the Sea Fury’s were famously credited with a MiG that day, one Sea Fury of a different flight was shot up and belly landed on a UN held island. It doesn’t rule out that there were losses though, these are official published accounts which may emphasize the positive, though OTOH as noted above they mention Chinese MiG losses to Meteors not listed as victories in the West. And it’s conceivable other MiG units were involved, since there were several encounters.
JoeBWell, I am going strickly by memory and read it from several sources. Yet, I believe the main one I was thinking about. Was in a book about Corsairs by Tilman. Quoting Adm. Nimitz………Which, I unfortunately gave to a friend a few years back. By the way what was your source????
Tillman says in “Corsair” (p. 154, not quoting anyone else, author’s statement): “F8F would have become the fleet’s only pure fighter”. But, the F4U and F6F already weren’t used as pure fighters by 1945. Maybe semantics, but I was speaking of the F4U literally replacing the F8F, as happened from late 40’s, when some F8F units handed them in for F4U’s, not both types serving alongside one another but one used more as a pure fighter.
I don’ have a source for a negative, I’d just never seen a solid statement about F8F replacing the F4U in any concrete way, didn’t interpret Tillman that way. On production side, Vought was producing F4U’s (and Goodyear FG’s) flat out in 1945 and intended to continue. The replacement was Grumman switching away from F6F to F8F, and General Motors to switch from FM (ie F4F) to F3M (ie. F8F) production.
Re: BSG-75, there were postwar contracts for both F8F’s and F4U’s, figures vary but one set is 293 F8F-2’s, 467 F4U-5’s but most of latter were specialist versions (-5N and -5P). That was pretty small change in both cases compared to even the diminished post-WWII USN fleet, especially given the high rate of wastage in accidents typical at the time. Prop fighter units were mainly filled out with F4U-4’s, almost 2400 of which had been built, compared to well under 1,000 F8F’s from wartime contracts. So when deciding to standardize on one piston fighter alongside jets in late 40’s, the USN went with the numbers and decided to phase out the F8F first. Later during Korea, the Marines got 110 (or so) new AU-1’s produced in 1952, most survivors of which went to the French right after the war, along with 94 F4U-7’s produced in 52-53 for the French.
Joe
JoeBSorry, you are “mistaken” it was planned to replace Corsair with Bearcats late in the war to battle the increasing threat from Kamikazes. That said, the Corsair would have still operate in a Fighter Bomber or Strike Role.
Source?
Re: J. Boyle: comparatively few of either F4U’s or F8F’s were built under postwar contracts, ie. were still being produced in the late 40’s, though both were, when it was decided to standardize on the F4U. The big numbers difference was in a/c leftover from wartime contracts, ie. the large number of F4U-4 series a/c. All the ‘straight’ F4U’s used in Korea by USN sdns were -4’s and -4B’s, the only Navy -5’s used in combat were small numbers of -5P’s and -5N’s. One Marine sdn used straight -5’s in combat for a short time, also used -5N’s, and later AU-1’s produced during the Korean War, but also great majority of Marine F4U’s used in Korea were -4’s and -4B’s. The 40’s decision was based on numbers of leftover a/c from WWII: lots more F4U’s than F8F’s.
Joe
JoeBThe Corsair inturn were suppose to be replace by Bearcats in the fighter role. Yet, the war ended before that could take place. As for the Korean War the larger Corsair was prefered beacuse it could carry a heavier weapons load…………..
There was never a plan to replace the F4U with the F8F. As for F4U replacing the F8F, the Navy decided in the late ’40’s to standardize on one piston fighter type, in the active units, to operate alongside jets for the rest of the piston era. The F4U was the obvious choice because there were a lot more of them around than F8F’s. The Pacific Fleet had no more F8F units by June 1950 (though the Atlantic fleet still had some) that’s why the a/c didn’t operate in Korea. It was not a decision based on specific mission requirements in Korea.
Joe
Sign In
