In article ,
Greasy Rider wrote:
On 8 Jan 2007 05:48:43 -0800, "qui si parla Campagnolo"
postulated :

I thought the F-14 was tough to bring aboard. Corsair pilots, very
impressed. Gotta love paddles in shorts too, getting their tan set for
liberty.

It was my understanding that the Corsair was not an ideal aircraft for
carrier ops because of the limited forward visibility and most were
transferred over the Marines.

The early Corsairs - what the RN called the Corsair I - were distinctly
sub-optimal for 'carrier operations: the undercarriage oelos were prone to
bouncing on landing, the unbulged cockpit hood meant that visibility was
restricted and the pilot's head took a beating on landing and - as you say
- forward visibility was restricted (though not much worse than many
V-engined types, such as Firefly or Seafire). The Fleet Air Arm took on
Corsairs as soon as it could get them and very quickly evolved a curving
approach to the deck which meant that forward visibility was not a problem
for landing - this had been done before the first FAA Corsair squadrons
started forming (835 was first, in August 1943): could be that "Winkle"
Brown was responsible? The Corsair Is were still difficult to land -
Norman Hanson makes this very clear in "Carrier Pilot" - and by the time
the Corsair went into action with the RN Eastern Fleet they'd re-equipped
with Corsair IIs (there were also Corsair IIIs - Brewster built - and IVs
from Goodyear). The Corsair II onwards don't seem to have been regarded as
more difficult around the ship than anything else, and the USN seems to
have been happy enough with them once it adopted the FAA style of deck
approach.

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)