PDA

View Full Version : Corsair and her 'bent' wing



hairydynamicist
10-08-2004, 01:43 AM
Just wondering - that angle in the wing of the corsair, I take it it's there to allow for sorter landing gear and/or so that the a/c can fit in the hanger deck when the wings are stowed.

Can't think of any aerodynamic reason, and from a structural point of view it doesn't seem ideal. Unless anyone knows different?

Cheers!

k5054
10-08-2004, 01:47 AM
Your reasons are correct, but some sources also claim an aerodynamic advantage from the wing root being at 90deg to the fuselage and thus not needing the root fairings seen in other fighters with low wings.

Snuffy Smith
10-08-2004, 02:06 AM
The Corsair had the most powerful radial engine ever put in a plane at the time and the largest propeller. The main reason for the gull wing was to keep the prop from striking the deck. This also resulted in a shorter and stronger undercarraige. The aerodynamic effect was nuetral, but it did make it a more expensive and complex wing to manufacture.

WTE_Sikshoota
10-08-2004, 03:01 AM
S` Guys

Nail right on the head Snuffy... give that man a cigar! Kinda made a mean looking machine as a result too eh!

Now then, gotta concentrate on flying the Japanese Aircraft in our World At war Campaign & not those nice looking US thingy's.

Hokotaicho Sik
5th Kokutai
OIC WTE_2TG

visit our site at
wte-anga.com (http://wte-anga.com)

hairydynamicist
10-08-2004, 03:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
Your reasons are correct, but some sources also claim an aerodynamic advantage from the wing root being at 90deg to the fuselage and thus not needing the root fairings seen in other fighters with low wings. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's interesting!

Anyway, thanks to all for your replies http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Salfordian
10-08-2004, 03:52 AM
Yep, interference drag (caused by interaction of two bodies) for two connected bodies is at a minium when the angle between the two bodies is 90 deg. The drag increases as this angle reduces, roughly doubling at 60 deg, that is why filleting is used on the wing roots of other contemporary fighters, like the spitfire

WOLFMondo
10-08-2004, 04:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WTE_Sikshoota:


Now then, gotta concentrate on flying the Japanese Aircraft in our World At war Campaign & not those nice looking US thingy's.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd never describe the corsair as looking nice. Pretty mean and sleek but its not good looking IMO.

Bewolf
10-08-2004, 05:40 AM
One of the most beautiful planes of the war, imho. And I say that as a staunch german planes fan.

Chuck_Older
10-08-2004, 06:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snuffy Smith:
The Corsair had the most powerful radial engine ever put in a plane at the time and the largest propeller. The main reason for the gull wing was to keep the prop from striking the deck. This also resulted in a shorter and stronger undercarraige. The aerodynamic effect was nuetral, but it did make it a more expensive and complex wing to manufacture. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well, yes, but the P-47 used the same engine with a deeper cowling. I am surprised you didn't mention the fact that as a potential carrier-borne fighter, the F4U needed strong main landing gear.

Note the P-47 doesn't need bent wings to allow the prop to clear the runway. The main landing gear in the P-47 actually extend when they deploy. Why couldn't the F4U use that system?

Because the concern was not just making main landing gear that could allow the prop to clear the runway on takeoff/landing, but also sine it could see carrier ops, a short, strong landing gear leg was desireable.

To this end, the inverted gullwing was very advantageous. A shorter, sturdier main landing gear leg without prop to ground clearance issues.

I would instead say that the inverted gullwing allows the prop from striking the deck while using a short main landing gear leg, not to simply keep the prop from striking the deck.

RavagerOCHW
10-08-2004, 06:55 AM
The F4U had a bigger prop then the P-47 AFAIK

Chuck_Older
10-08-2004, 07:34 AM
Sure, OK.

That doesn't disprove anything I just mentioned

I mean, let's say the prop was 4 feet longer

The P-47 had a landing gear system that actually got longer as the gear deployed, so that the 'gear up' position was shorter than the 'gear down' position.

Why didn't the F4U simply use that system or one like it? Main gear strength: you want a short main gear leg.

VW-IceFire
10-08-2004, 08:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Sure, OK.

That doesn't disprove anything I just mentioned

I mean, let's say the prop was 4 feet longer

The P-47 had a landing gear system that actually got longer as the gear deployed, so that the 'gear up' position was shorter than the 'gear down' position.

Why didn't the F4U simply use that system or one like it? Main gear strength: you want a short main gear leg. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think the P-47's landing gear was unsuitable for carrier landing because it would cause too much bounce. I remember reading that somewhere but I can't remember...

BlakJakOfSpades
10-08-2004, 08:21 AM
and if i recall the p-47 was the first to use such a system it might have been relatively new, expensive, perhaps buggy, and unproven

WOLFMondo
10-08-2004, 08:39 AM
I couldn't think of a more unsuitable plane to have on a carrier than a P47. If nothing else it would take up allot of space below decks and landing such a big and heavy plane on a carrier can't be healthy for the pilots nerves! Not to mention the amount of run way needed for it to take off with bombs, rockets and a reasonable amount of fuel.

Chuck_Older
10-08-2004, 09:33 AM
So the F4U's landing gear weren't short because of the need for sturdy gear, and the wing being an inverted gullwing weren't advantageous because it kept the gear short.

Gotcha http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

By the way, the P-47 was used as an example because it too had concerns over the prop striking the ground and small space avaliable for the gear when retracted, not because it was something I thought was suitable for carrier ops. It takes more than an arrestor hook and the desire to land on a moving target to make a good naval aircraft. The P-47 had similar issues with prop strike and that made it a suitable example, the point of the example was not to illustrate how great a carrier borne aircraft the P-47 would be. I'm not sure how that idea was introduced, but it's not what I said at all

WOLFMondo
10-08-2004, 09:41 AM
"It takes more than an arrestor hook and the desire to land on a moving target to make a good naval aircraft"

Sounds like a Seafire to me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sorry, misread what you origianlly said although I wasn't saying you thought the P47 would be a good naval plane...just its probably the most unsuitable plane to be converted for naval use. Still, the FAA wanted the Spitfire which was really a nightmare as a carrier based fighter despite its excellent performance.

Phenix14
10-08-2004, 09:51 AM
Won't the bent wing increase wing surface area and therefore lift? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

ddsflyer
10-08-2004, 11:48 AM
Actually Grumman did use the folding/extended gear concept for a carrier fighter (Bearcat) but it was too late for the war. It had the same P&W R2800 engine and 14 foot prop. BTW, the gross weights of the P-47 and Corsair were comparable.

Snootles
10-08-2004, 11:52 AM
The P-47 might not have made the best carrier plane, but note that the Hellcat was actually the second largest single-engine fighter in the War (behind the Thunderbolt).

SkyChimp
10-08-2004, 07:00 PM
And the Hellcat was considered an exceptional carrier plane.

VF-3Thunderboy
10-08-2004, 11:51 PM
The bent wings may also have helped the roll rate, as the corsair had a very fast roll.(Big engine helps too, but P-47 wasnt on the real fast list.!)

ImpStarDuece
10-09-2004, 12:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ddsflyer:
Actually Grumman did use the folding/extended gear concept for a carrier fighter (Bearcat) but it was too late for the war. It had the same P&W R2800 engine and 14 foot prop. BTW, the gross weights of the P-47 and Corsair were comparable. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually IIRC the p-47 maxed out at about 9500 kg while the Corsair was somewhere around 6500kg in weight. Cant recall for sure, dont have any references with me and i never trust stuff online. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Anyone got some more solid figures?

I think the P47N got up over 10000kg (or more than 22000lbs for those still using metric)

horseback
10-09-2004, 12:03 PM
F4U-1 loaded weight (internal fuel only):12,694 lbs (5,763 kg). Max gross weight, with drop tank, 13, 846 lbs (6,286 kg)

F4U-4:empty, 9336lbs (238 kg); loaded, 14, 329lbs (6,505 kg); max gross, 14520 lbs (6,592 kg).

Source: Arco's WW2 Aircraft Fact Files, US Navy and Marine Corps Fighters, by Green and Swanborough.

P-47C: empty, 9,900 lbs (4500 kg); gross, 13,500 lbs (6136 kg); max takeoff, 14, 925 lbs (6784 kg).

P-47D-28-RE:empty, 10,000 lbs(4545 kg); gross, 14,500lbs (6590 kg); max takeoff, 17,500 lbs (7955 kg).

P-47N-1-RE: empty, 10,988 lbs (4,999 kg); gross, 13,823 lbs (6,283 kg); max takeoff, 21,200 lbs (9,636 kg)

Source: Detail & Scale # 54, P-47 Thunderbolt, by Burt Kinzey.

cheers

horseback

Ubird
10-09-2004, 07:32 PM
Folks-My first post over here. Looking forward to a great game!

Corsair landing gear: the extending rotating gear was considered, but was patented and owned by Boeing. So the design was changed. The design was used in the Boeing entry into the postwar design contest that eventually yielded the Skyraider.

The roll rate was achieved through many test flights and design modifications. For an interesting read, try the book WHISTLING DEATH by the Corsair test pilot Boone Guyton. While it's not a technical treatise, it covers the development and production of the beast from beginning to end.

CYA UPSTAIRS! When is the US release of PF?


Cutman (the original Cutman)

Fliger747
10-10-2004, 04:29 AM
Actually the 'jug' had a pretty good initial roll rate.

The F4U-1 flaps were reduced in span from the prototype and many many (over 100) test flights were done to evaluate the ailerons (and tab setups)at various speeds, finally giving a good roll throught the flight envelope.

Instantaneous roll is an important manuver factor and does a lot to equalize the potential of a highr wingloaded aircraft against a more lightly loaded one. Having a short transit time between manuvers can leave the other guy two manuvers behind!

SgtWalt65
10-10-2004, 07:57 AM
Official Aviation History about the Corsair. It was the prop clearancve that justified the wing design in the end. Read on.
http://www.aviation-history.com/vought/f4u.html

With the awesome 2,804 cubic inch (46 liter) Double Wasp air-cooled radial engine developing 1,850 hp (1,380.6 kW), the only way to convert that kind of horsepower efficiently into thrust was with a huge Hamilton Standard Hydromatic, 3 blade prop which measured 13 feet 4 inches (4.06 meters) in diameter. And that created a problem of deck clearance for the prop. It seemed either the main landing gear had to be lengthened, or the prop had to be shortened.

Since the landing gear had to be very strong to withstand the pounding of a carrier deck landing, a short, stout leg was required. Also, there wouldn€t be enough room in the wing to properly stow a longer gear. And, if the prop were shortened, much of the horsepower of the Double Wasp would be wasted. So, Vought engineers came up with the distinctive inverted gull-wing design which forever characterized the F4U Corsair. This "bent wing" design allowed the huge prop to clear the deck while providing for a short, stout landing gear. And, as a byproduct, the wing also improved the aerodynamics of the intersection where the wing attaches to the fuselage, boosting the top speed.

It was a very "slick" looking plane using flush riveting and a new technique developed jointly by Vought and the Naval Aircraft Factory called "spot-welding". In order to make the Corsair as aerodynamically clean as possible, there was nothing protruding into the air stream. The intake for the turbo-supercharger, intercooler and the oil cooler were located in slots in the inboard leading edges of the wings. Vought designed the fuselage with a circular cross-section which fit snugly over the Pratt-Whitney engine. The F4U was the first Navy craft to have landing gear which retracted flush into the bottom of the wing, though it took some effort. Other craft had retracting gear, but there was always some bulge or part of the wheel exposed. Vought engineers designed the Corsairs wheels to swivel 90º and retract straight back to fit flat inside the bottom of the wing. Two panels then closed over the gear making a perfectly smooth fairing. The idea was to mate the most powerful engine with the smallest, cleanest possible airframe.

Cajun76
10-10-2004, 08:59 AM
I was always (and still am) puzzled by the descion to use a 3 bladed prop instead of a four bladed one. The prop can have a smaller diameter with the 4 blade, although wider is better. I like the design, with the bent wings and all, but a more effiecient prop would probably be almost as wide, and have 4 blades.

Hmm, I've been wondering in my Jug will be CARQUALed or not.......

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/P-47catapult.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

MOhz
10-10-2004, 10:11 AM
imo the corsair is not at all mean looking. maybe only with those six bada** rockets. but i would probably would have lmao and died of that then of being scared. sure that the first jap. not encounter the thing were so surprised that the thing flew that they got shot down.

MEGILE
10-10-2004, 11:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> hmm, I've been wondering in my Jug will be CARQUALed or not.......
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p47carrier.jpg

Fliger747
10-10-2004, 01:45 PM
Have at it! The P61 Black widow makes a great carrier bird as well, though single engine landings without a 'hook' add a bit to the spice of life.

A squadron of Hurricanes, escaping from Norway landed on Glorius (no hooks) without incident. However the next day the went down with the ship when she was sunk by GUNFIRE by Scharnhorst.

Any number of AAF types were flown from carriers which were used to ferry them to forward fields, however they were slung aboard by crane at dockside. Fine if you are contemplating a 'one way' trip. cann'a be struck below either!

Taylortony
10-10-2004, 03:07 PM
yeah yeah and before long you will all be trying to convince me the Royal Navy tried fitting a carrier with a rubber deck so as to negate the need for an undercarraige and hence saving a lot of weight with the early blow jobs, or that we experimented with a crane and a hook system so you could fly your harrier onto the hook and swing it inboard then fly it off the hook when swung back outboard....... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



btw all of the above is true

BfHeFwMe
10-10-2004, 11:29 PM
Zeno's warbirds show's the Corsair diving and using his gear mains for the dive brakes. They were also designed with that function as well. The tail gear, hook, and doors had to be retracted though, they were unable to take the speeds through the dive. Now you know why that big draggy door is hanging up as a speed brake covering the strut wind side.

Bet they snap off over 350 KPH in game though. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Fliger747
10-11-2004, 12:47 AM
The limit on the tailwheel was for the doors, which had a 'piano' type hinge, not up to the air load. The 'drag brake' started out as a field mod experiment. Overall the F4U was surprisingly effective dive bomber, nearly as good in accuracy tests as the famed SBD.