Posted: 25 Aug 2006, 06:14
First, I said I mispoke and meant to write fighter and not "airplane". That's not changing the rules, that's admitting an error.
Second, VF-17 had problems initially with their Carrier Quals because of the issues of the early F4U-1 Corsairs, but they completed the Quals and then the Navy sidelined them to continue working on fixing those issues for several months before shipping them to the Pacific serve a Combat Tour as a land-based squadron. However, technically, they were a "operationally capable" squadron during that whole time. It was part of their desire to have the Corsair as a ship-based and not a land-based aircraft.
Also, there is a huge difference between a one-off "experimental" aircraft (S6B) and a prototype (XF4U) and a production prototype (XF4U-1). During the 1940s, the idea of the "Y" for production and service prototypes had not yet been introduced, so any aircraft not destined for regular squadron service got an "X" before it's designation, even if fully combat capable.
The XF4U-1 exceeded 400 MPH in a service test (which meant that it recorded by multiple independent sources to confirm accuracy as was required by service tests) in level flight on 1 October 1940. From that moment on, per the Navy contract, every aircraft produced by Vought had to meet or exceed that specification to be accepted by the Navy and Vought to be paid. The US Navy had a different acquisition program than the Army at the time and were very strict about ensuring that each aircraft met the required performance measures in an acceptance flight prior to the Navy paying for that aircraft. As a result, several aircraft were actually rejected by the Navy and had to either be reworked or were devoted to follow-on flight tests as a company aircraft. In this way, US Navy contracts are different from Army ones of the time. The Army only required that the aircraft make the goal, not ensure that every follow-on aircraft did so via physical test.
Second, VF-17 had problems initially with their Carrier Quals because of the issues of the early F4U-1 Corsairs, but they completed the Quals and then the Navy sidelined them to continue working on fixing those issues for several months before shipping them to the Pacific serve a Combat Tour as a land-based squadron. However, technically, they were a "operationally capable" squadron during that whole time. It was part of their desire to have the Corsair as a ship-based and not a land-based aircraft.
Also, there is a huge difference between a one-off "experimental" aircraft (S6B) and a prototype (XF4U) and a production prototype (XF4U-1). During the 1940s, the idea of the "Y" for production and service prototypes had not yet been introduced, so any aircraft not destined for regular squadron service got an "X" before it's designation, even if fully combat capable.
The XF4U-1 exceeded 400 MPH in a service test (which meant that it recorded by multiple independent sources to confirm accuracy as was required by service tests) in level flight on 1 October 1940. From that moment on, per the Navy contract, every aircraft produced by Vought had to meet or exceed that specification to be accepted by the Navy and Vought to be paid. The US Navy had a different acquisition program than the Army at the time and were very strict about ensuring that each aircraft met the required performance measures in an acceptance flight prior to the Navy paying for that aircraft. As a result, several aircraft were actually rejected by the Navy and had to either be reworked or were devoted to follow-on flight tests as a company aircraft. In this way, US Navy contracts are different from Army ones of the time. The Army only required that the aircraft make the goal, not ensure that every follow-on aircraft did so via physical test.
As far as adding your twopennyworth is concerned, it matters not if you're a Chippie or a Concorde mate.. everyone has to start somewhere 
