Editing Vought F4U Corsair (section)

===Technical issues===
In part because of its advances in technology and a top speed greater than existing Navy aircraft, numerous technical problems had to be solved before the Corsair entered service. Carrier suitability was a major development issue, prompting changes to the main landing gear, tail wheel, and [[tailhook]]. Early F4U-1s had difficulty recovering from developed spins, since the inverted gull wing's shape interfered with elevator authority. It was also found that the Corsair's left wing could [[Stall (flight)|stall]] and drop rapidly and without warning during slow carrier landings.<ref>''Air Ministry'' 1944, pp. 24–25.</ref> In addition, if the throttle were suddenly advanced (for example, during an [[Go-around|aborted landing]]) the left wing could stall and drop so quickly that the fighter could flip over with the rapid increase in power.<ref>Brown 1980, pp. 86–87.</ref> These potentially lethal characteristics were later solved through the addition of a small, {{convert|6|in|mm|abbr=on}}-long [[stall strip]] to the leading edge of the outer right wing, just outboard of the gun ports. This allowed the right wing to stall at the same time as the left.<ref name="O'Leary 1980, pp.106-107.">O'Leary 1980, pp. 106–107.</ref>

[[Image:F4U-1 NACA 1943.jpeg|thumb|An early F4U-1 showing the "birdcage" canopy with rearwards production cockpit location.]]
Other problems were encountered during early carrier trials. Visibility problems caused by the Corsair's combination of an aft-mounted cockpit and long nose made landings hazardous for newly trained pilots. During landing approaches, it was found that oil from the opened hydraulically powered [[Aircraft engine controls#Cowl|cowl flaps]] could spatter onto the windscreen, severely reducing visibility, and the undercarriage [[oleo strut]]s had bad rebound characteristics on landing, allowing the aircraft to bounce down the carrier deck.<ref name="O'Leary 1980, pp.106-107."/> The first problem was solved by locking the top cowl flaps in front of the windscreen down permanently, then replacing them with a fixed panel. The undercarriage bounce took more time to solve, but eventually a "bleed valve" incorporated in the legs allowed the hydraulic pressure to be released gradually as the aircraft landed. The Corsair was not considered fit for carrier use until the wing stall problems and the deck bounce could be solved.

Meanwhile, the more docile and simpler-to-build F6F Hellcat had begun entering service in its intended carrier-based use. The Navy wanted to standardize on one type of carrier fighter, and the Hellcat, while slower than the Corsair, was considered simpler to land on a carrier by an inexperienced pilot and proved to be successful almost immediately after introduction. The Navy's decision to choose the Hellcat meant that the Corsair was released to the U.S. Marine Corps. With no initial requirement for carrier landings, the Marine Corps deployed the Corsair to devastating effect from land bases. Corsair deployment aboard U.S. carriers was delayed until late 1944, by which time the last of the carrier landing problems, relating to the Corsair's long nose, had been tackled by the British.{{#tag:ref|A landing technique using a curving approach that kept the LSO (landing signal officer) in view while coming aboard was developed by the [[Royal Navy]] and was adopted by the U.S. Navy.<ref>O'Leary 1980, p. 111.</ref>|group=N}}