I'll buy all of that. And no need to dig up proof of your claim for my benefit. I believe you.

I don't think I claimed we couldn't do it without the FAA. However, we've shown here that the US Navy evaluated and debated the aircraft, then alloted it to the Marines, and primary land usage initially, for sound reasons having to do with logistics. In the meantime, the FAA took theirs and operated them from carriers in regular service. From this circumstance has grown that trope...that we couldn't operate them from carriers until the FAA showed us how. By the time the US put them aboard in regular operation, the landing gear had been modified, and lift enhancers were added to the starboard wing. I've read it was the FAA themselves who did away with the bird cage canopy for a bubble canopy, and raised the pilot's seat 7 inches, giving a better forward view. They also wired shut all the top cowl flaps, also for better forward visability. So, they also made some mechanical changes as well as their landing techniques. It was "a group effort" to make the plane better, and it got better with succeeding models. The FAA took one of the earliest variants and employed it operationally while ours were still primarily land based. As I noted, our Marines did take early types aboard infrequently as well, showing that the plane could certainly be used, even in its early forms, from a carrier.

While the FAA used it regularly from their carriers before we did, not much else can be truthfully claimed beyond that.