The Corsair was built by the Chance Vought corporation as a carrier based fighter bomber. Its distinctive "gull wing", which allowed it to have a shorter undercarriage while accommodating a larger propeller, made it instantly recognisable. The wing also allowed for easier storage in carrier hangers. Nonetheless it was not a small aircraft. 10.26m long (33' 8") with a 12.5m wingspan (41'), it stood 4.5m (14' 9") tall. A Mk IX Spitfire, by comparison, was over 1 metre shorter in length, more than a metre narrower in wingspan, and a metre shorter in height.

The F4U was considered to be a very potent machine, to the extent that they were produced all the way through to 1953 with more than 12,500 produced. They were not the easiest machine to fly, though, earning the name "The Ensign Killer".

So why do I suspect that this one is not real?

For one thing, if an aviation museum has a Corsair, they'll shout it from the rooftops. That's what the Museum of Flight did in Seattle when I was there. (That was back when Seattle was still worth visiting last century.)

This one, however, isn't even listed on the Museum's web site. The wheels don't look real, the engine doesn't look real, and the whole thing looks too small though it's hard to judge. But on that point...

Behind it is a CA-13 Boomerang, a single seat fighter that was derived from the Wirraway trainer (image 30333). It was short, pugnacious and would have been eaten alive had it gone up against front line Japanese fighters. It was therefore mostly limited to home defence roles. The Boomerang was 25'6" long, so 8' 2" shorter than the Corsair. Its wingspan is 5 feet shorter... and yet here the Boomerang looks at least as large? (Though I suspect that the Boomerang is a replica as well.)

Also, there is no indication of which model this was. The two main ones were the original F4U-1, and the souped up F4U-4. I suspect it's supposed to be the latter from the length of the engine cowling.

It's nice to see a Corsair. It would be sheer delight to see a real one.

It's better than nothing, though.

Addendum: My personal opinion is that Facebook is a sociopathic organisation that steals other peoples' intellectual property (including the images in this gallery) despite being explicitly denied permission to do so.