# Foo Fighters



## Bronc (Oct 20, 2009)

For those who might not have heard the term: Foo fighter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyway, if anyone has a plausible theory as to what they were, it's going to be someone on WW2Aircraft.net.

They were seen in all theatres of the war, but not so much in Korea, and rarely if ever today. So what were they?

Bronc


----------



## vanir (Oct 21, 2009)

Likely explanation is a variety of phenomenae being reported as the same thing. As technology and scientific familiarity in standard education curriculums increased various elements contributing to these reports have been eliminated from continuing reports, such as ball lightning for example, of which little was known until the seventies. Ufoe reporting still continues, mostly among commercial airliners and military (whether it is not often reported by civilian pilots due to ridicule or because they rarely fly very high performance craft in unusual and all weather conditions day and night is open to speculation), also by astronauts.

Project Blue Book reports are interesting to read, there is one very good incident supported by interceptors, a commerical airliner and ground stations in the sixties of a ufoe reported by a commercial airliner in US airspace, which was then observed by ground stations and finally by a pair of F4 Phantoms sent to intercept, a giant glowing ball which accelerated well beyond the capabilities of the Phantoms to continue pursuit, although they had been within visual range of it for some time before it did this.

The USSR also spent official subsidy investigating supernatural phenomenae, somewhat similar to the US Project Blue Book, theirs included investigating claims of paranormal activities among the community. There is quite of bit of footage taken by KGB agents who would interview people who claimed to have such powers as telekinesis. None were proved however.

Wartime, whether World War or Cold War is a weird time. I'd say put that with people doing things our psychology was probably never intended to handle like flying through the air at 500mph plus in the dark...


----------



## stan reid (Oct 17, 2013)

In a somewhat related field, the battle of Los Angeles was the other real time big "flying sauce" incident of WWII.


----------



## stona (Oct 18, 2013)

A UFO is just that, an Unidentified Flying Object. For me the least rational of all possible explanations is that they have come from another planet/galaxy/time (delete as you like).
Cheers
Steve


----------



## pattle (Oct 18, 2013)

Flying saucers in America? I think these were more to do with Jack Northrop than Ming the Merciless myself.


----------



## stona (Oct 18, 2013)

pattle said:


> Flying saucers in America? I think these were more to do with Jack Northrop than Ming the Merciless myself.



Indeed. We tend to explain things that we don't understand in the most odd ways. I suppose it was perfectly logical for the Norsemen to imagine that thunder was caused by some big bloke in the sky with a big hammer 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 18, 2013)

stan reid said:


> In a somewhat related field, the battle of Los Angeles was the other real time big "flying sauce" incident of WWII.


The "Battle of Los Angeles" was nothing more than a nervous population that was triggered by a series of events that escelated into a panic.

At the time, everyone thought the Japanese were right off the coast, preparing to send over bombers ahead of an invasion force.

When one itchy AA battery opened up, it started a chain reaction that eventually killed several people and destroyed a few buildings.

As far as flying saucers go...there really were. In a way.

Here's a couple of examples:

The Sack As6:






The Vought XF5U-1 (there was a later, jet assisted version also):


----------



## stona (Oct 19, 2013)

RAF bomber crews reported that the Germans were firing pyrotechnic shells they called "scarecrows" to simulate bombers going down which might demoralise other crews. The RAF itself perpetuated the myth. There were no pyrotechnics, those really were bombers going down.

Here's another real flying saucer.






Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 19, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> As far as flying saucers go...there really were. In a way.
> 
> Here's a couple of examples:



Here is the Vought XF5U-1






What look like jet engine intakes are the intakes/cowls for the 2 × Pratt Whitney R-2000-7 engines. 

Your second picture is of a V-173 proof of concept aircraft. 

There may have been an even later version with a jet engine assist?


----------



## John Frazer (May 11, 2018)

In the US in the early-mid '30s, the Arup planes from Indiana flew airshows for several years. Could not attract interest, despite successful performance and safety. S-2 was ~800lb, 84 kts on 37HP, landing speed 19kts. Difficult to stall, impossible to spin.
One of them flew for NACA and impressed them with it's speed and its phenomenally low landing speed. It was after that, Vought and the former NACA engineer Zimmerman came up with his V-173, under the mistaken apprehension that they needed the props to spin down-at-the-tips to counter supposedly high drag. Not true, and NACA Langley tests showed that there was no particular gain, and it is shown that the props and their gearing system killed the XF5U. It never took off because of vibrations from the powertrain.

Meanwhile the Boeing "Flapjack" plane would have been like a Bearcat, but with more speed, range, payload, and <30kts landing speed.
Its not clear why the Navy ignored it for the Vought monstrosity.
Sergei Sikorsky design for a jet version.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 11, 2018)

The top speed of the Arup S-2 was 97 mph. The top speed for the Arup S-4 was 115 mph.
Neither Arup designs had the ability to be more than a novelty and the designer of the S-2, Hoffman, went on to design his own flying wing which crashed and killed the pilot.
The Boeing projects were conceptual and were never realized nor tested - much like the Horton Brother's projects beyond the Ho.IX

Ford Motor Company's model 15-P held more promise than the Boeing wing (and 306) concepts.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 13, 2018)

A UFO of course, as per Steve's definition back in 2013, doesn't have to have been extra-terrestrial.



> the term was also commonly used to mean any UFO sighting from that period. Formally reported from November 1944 onwards, witnesses often assumed that the foo fighters were secret weapons employed by the enemy.



It could have been a band started by ex Nirvana drummer Dave Grohl...



> This article is about the aerial phenomenon. For the rock band, see Foo Fighters. For the homebuilt aircraft, see Stewart Foo Fighter.



I suspect what these guys saw will go with them to their graves. There is probably no plausible explanation that fits every account.


----------



## John Frazer (May 16, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Neither Arup designs had the ability to be more than a novelty



The Navy later thought enough of it to fund Zimmerman's abortive attempt, though for some reason they confused the high drag at low speed-high-A flight with cruise performance. Not true, as proven by the Arup which flew for NACA, and established the utility of the low-aspect ratio planform.
What standard would be used to say they were worth no more than novelty? Good speed and efficiency, safe routine operation put into practice, what more?
Hoffman moved on after the S-3 was destroyed after being damaged by apparent arson, and another worked with Snyder on the S-4. Hoffman built his for Younghusband, and it was well into successful trials when the fatal crash occurred. A fuel leak and fire isn't a damning statement against the type and concept, nor is market apathy to the Arups. They flew, and did so very well.



> Ford Motor Company's model 15-P held more promise than the Boeing wing (and 306) concepts.


Not true by any means that it compared to the Arups. The Arups flew dozens of sorties, several seasons, multiple pilots and were proven. 15p made a handful of hops with only one pilot and was always problematic. Not at all in the same category of proven exhibited performance.
Arup never tried to build tail-less. Most designers of such planes like Fauvel, Cheranovsky and Canova also tried to go tail-less and all eventually resigned to a fin at least because of poor control and stability. The Navy's plane also used fins, and found that the separated elevons hung behind the wing were far better than the tailing edge ailerons or wingtip-flippers of the Arups. (No significant advantage to the out-ward rotating props in the Vought plane, though. Less stability)
The little Boeing test plane would have been a true study of the Arups, so why doubt that Boeing for the Navy couldn't repeat the usefulness?


----------



## PWR4360-59B (Jul 14, 2018)

If a person has done a bit of study on the subject and read some of the old information of years ago, it shows an interesting picture. Part of the sightings of UFO's show a development picture, and comparing then to now sightings it proves a development has gone on with some of them. 
If you do the search, into the beginnings of flying saucers (that are not aircraft meaning don't use aerodynamics to fly) of modern times, started in Germany, why not as it seems most all modern inventions began there. In the beginning days they looked like riveted together metal, and smoked and sometimes made clanking noises along with humming etc. Then they progressed to very smooth surfaces and still had mechanical problems at times, in Vietnam war days some folks thought they heard a locomotive when they saw a flying saucer, made me think of what I remember as a kid when I heard an EMD locomotive running. I remember reading other such descriptions of people that saw a flying saucer in I think it was the Portland Oregon area, back in the 50's or 60's, the sound of a diesel engine and black smoke ! Maybe a generator set? The main thing that makes the UFO thing something to be ashamed of is the constant talk of aliens, and how that is so perpetuated when the topic comes up. It instantly throws the poo poo on the subject. That is why I have always wished we could just talk about the machines and not the what some folks would call the out there part, the alien topic. To go on to the other UFO's that are not metal, you would need to be a believer in the Almighty.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jul 19, 2018)

Hey, man, I've been to Roswell. I've seen the _museum_. I've even got the comic mini-series _Roswell, Little Green Man,_ bought at the comic book store in Roswell, in 1997. 
You're telling me its _BS?!!!!_


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 19, 2018)

John Frazer said:


> The Navy later thought enough of it to fund Zimmerman's abortive attempt, though for some reason they confused the high drag at low speed-high-A flight with cruise performance. Not true, as proven by the Arup which flew for NACA, and established the utility of the low-aspect ratio planform.
> What standard would be used to say they were worth no more than novelty? Good speed and efficiency, safe routine operation put into practice, what more?
> Hoffman moved on after the S-3 was destroyed after being damaged by apparent arson, and another worked with Snyder on the S-4. Hoffman built his for Younghusband, and it was well into successful trials when the fatal crash occurred. A fuel leak and fire isn't a damning statement against the type and concept, nor is market apathy to the Arups. They flew, and did so very well.


First of all, "Good Speed"? I'm not sure how you define good speed, but the Arups were not fast.
The Arup S-1 was slow and uncontrollable.
The Arup S-2, which is the one that was demonstrated for NACA and the military, had a top speed of 97 miles an hour. The S-2 eventually crashed.
The Arup S-3, which had poor flight characteristics was the one that was eventually destroyed by arson.
The Arup S-4 had a top speed of 115 miles an hour - which was not impressive even by 1935 standards.
The Hoffman wing had an impressive speed of 135 miles an hour, but caught fire during a flight and crashed.

Not an impressive track record, to be honest.




John Frazer said:


> Not true by any means that it compared to the Arups. The Arups flew dozens of sorties, several seasons, multiple pilots and were proven. 15p made a handful of hops with only one pilot and was always problematic. Not at all in the same category of proven exhibited performance.
> Arup never tried to build tail-less. Most designers of such planes like Fauvel, Cheranovsky and Canova also tried to go tail-less and all eventually resigned to a fin at least because of poor control and stability. The Navy's plane also used fins, and found that the separated elevons hung behind the wing were far better than the tailing edge ailerons or wingtip-flippers of the Arups. (No significant advantage to the out-ward rotating props in the Vought plane, though. Less stability)
> The little Boeing test plane would have been a true study of the Arups, so why doubt that Boeing for the Navy couldn't repeat the usefulness?


The Ford Motor Company, by way of the Stout Metal Aircraft Division, had a great deal of success with aircraft building and the Model 15-P held solid promise, but the War sidelined the project. If the Arups held so much promise, where are they today?

The Vought V-173 had a top speed of 138 miles an hour and had reasonable performance.
The Vought XF5U *never was able to get airborne* because of technical problems.
So while the Arup types were viewed by Zimmerman, who went on to design the two types for Vought, there was no physical connection.

To expand a little, the Sach AS-6 was also problematic. So it appears that disc or heel shaped aircraft held little promise HOWEVER, the Ford Model 15-P was a Flying Wing, not a full or half disc planform.

The Boeing 306 concepts were nothing more than just concepts and there's a big, fat book of "Luft '46" concepts that promised a great many things, too.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 19, 2018)

I remember reading about the F5U, and posted it in another thread regarding aspect ratio: I'm not sure how much performance was lost by spinning the propellers the opposite way. From what I remember reading it was anywhere from a few percent to 30-50 at high AoA


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 20, 2018)

The XF5U had far too many issues that were never able to be ironed out.

One of the largest problems, was the severe vibration (regardless of engine rotation) that was experienced when the engines were run up to taxi speed. This is one of the reasons it never got airborne.

One a couple of trials, it did make short hops, but the Hughes H-4 flew further than the XF5U ever did.


----------



## John Frazer (Jul 21, 2018)

S-2 was 97mph on 30 horsepower, which impressed many, including NACA.
S-2 and S-4 were working planes, not hangar queens and gingerly-handled test planes. They earned their living, and flew on until the age of the airframe ended them. S-2 was sold to a stunt performer who crashed planes, though it's not clear how specifically, it ended.

The Ford plane had nothing like their record of experience, and nothing said above speaks against the Arup type.

Hatfield in the '80s built his "Lttle Bird" series, and the 2 and 3 model validated everything the Arup's claimed: good speed for their horseppower, stall-proof and stable while being controllable and nimble if not exhibited aerobatics.

The whole question of "if they were good, where are they today" is a red herring. "The market" had no interest in a good thing. It's not the first time in aviation history that a good idea withered on the vine because of customer inattention. Again, that doesn't speak against the concept or model type.
Let's ask fans of he XB-70, the Acro-Canada "Arrow", and the BAC TSR-2 "if it was a good thing, where is it now? Simple lack of sales record means it had nothing to offer. Case closed."
Concorde was celebrated, though not many flew, and not for long, and not profitably and removed from service after a crash. By the metric of "where are they now", they were solid failures. 
Same might go for the Space Shuttle: Graft and collusion forcing a "fleet" of 5 to fly when they sholdn't have been more than a seldom-used test plane, does not make a successful flying machine or a good career. Points is that "the market" doesn't determine science. Often goes against good science of what works.

Langley history says that after seeing the S-2, Zimerman published his patents, using the identical planform with his props design.
V-173 could have gotten more speed with normal props that didn't limit it, by being designed to interact with the wing-tip vortex.
Langley tests showed that they didn't help with drag reduction, or controllability or stability -hampered stability a bit.
With normal sorts of props driven by the 2 80hp engines it should have been faster, but for Zimmerman's hobby of the exaggerated props.
XF5U never was able to fly because of "Zimmerman's folly", those silly geared flapping props. It failed specifically because of that mechanical extravagance which was not necessary to flight.
Simple twin-engine arrangement would have been good, by all available information.

And again, the Ford all-wing never was a successful aircraft.

4 or so models of the Rowe "UFO" flies just fine. Virtually copy of Boeing 396 or the Sack plane. Makers of the Sack plane did something wrong, that's all. Arup/Hoffman, Hatfield and others prove that the concept can work, and very well.
Wainfan Facetmobile also shows that extremely short aspect-ratio unitary wing/body can work very well. Carburetor trouble forcing it to emergency land through a fence, is not a point against the concept or the model type. For all we know, the short aspect ratio qualities, is what made it survivable.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 21, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> The Arup S-2, which is the one that was demonstrated for NACA and the military, had a top speed of 97 miles an hour. The S-2 eventually crashed.


What caused the crash? Given enough time almost any airplane will crash...


> The Arup S-3, which had poor flight characteristics was the one that was eventually destroyed by arson


Was the arson a way to collect on insurance?


> The Ford Motor Company, by way of the Stout Metal Aircraft Division, had a great deal of success with aircraft building and the Model 15-P held solid promise, but the War sidelined the project.


Do you think it would have worked as well as intended?


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 2, 2018)

John Frazer said:


> The whole question of "if they were good, where are they today" is a red herring.


Well, it can be


> Let's ask fans of he XB-70


The XB-70 was pathologically expensive...


> Langley history says that after seeing the S-2, Zimerman published his patents, using the identical planform with his props design.
> V-173 could have gotten more speed with normal props that didn't limit it, by being designed to interact with the wing-tip vortex.


I think you might be referring to the XF5U, the V-173 flew fine absent some vibration (it wasn't as severe as the XF5U). The speed was limited more by having a landing-gear.


> Langley tests showed that they didn't help with drag reduction, or controllability or stability -hampered stability a bit.
> With normal sorts of props driven by the 2 80hp engines it should have been faster, but for Zimmerman's hobby of the exaggerated props.


This actually was discussed in another thread which I gathered you didn't read. The bulk of the lift seemed to be produced by the slipstream however from what it would appear the degree to which the propellers affected the vortex varied with speed and AoA. At lower speeds it appeared the effect was more significant (depending on how I read the data it was either 7%, 30-50% though I could be wrong).


> XF5U never was able to fly because of "Zimmerman's folly", those silly geared flapping props.


Actually, Zimmerman wanted to put the flapping props on the design right off the bat. Vought decided it wasn't needed, so they had to graft on a feature they could have put in from the outset and would have probably seen the aircraft in the air earlier.

Part of me honestly wonders how much of the decision to cancel the XF5U had to do with jets being the wave of the future, or the post-war budget battles

The politicians wanted to reduce military spending funding as the war was over, and wars are economically ruinous when there's no conquest and plundering.
With only limited amounts of money available, each service wants the biggest piece of the pie it can get
The US Navy in demolishing the IJN basically left it with no counterpart that wasn't an ally, so there was a desire to scale it back into what would amount to a glorified coast-guard and submarine service.
The US Army argued that there would be no need for any amphibious invasions in the future (i.e. no need for the USMC), and it's air-arm could achieve all the basic things the USN could achieve, eliminating much of it's use (basically, it stood to be scaled back to a relatively small surface, and submarine force).
The USAAF/USAF wanted to gobble up all aerial assets they could, including the USN's: They roundly disliked carriers because they couldn't control them and sought to gut carrier aviation. They did this by claiming that carriers could not defend against nuclear equipped bombers (which wasn't entirely true), and could not deliver nuclear ordinance.
The USN countered these arguments by pitting the F2H against the B-36's as soon as they could, and developing a new super carrier to field a jet-powered bomber with a nuclear armament (They did field P2V's with nuclear ordinance, but they couldn't land; the AJ Savage was propeller driven and could probably used to be faster).
A plane like the XF5U would have been an aircraft that didn't really need a carrier and could have easily been gobbled up by the USAAF/USAF. Of course, it wouldn't have made a difference for a jet-powered nuclear-bomber that was designed to operate off a carrier, and jet-fighters though (which I'm not going to take an anti-jet stance of course).


----------



## John Frazer (Aug 17, 2018)

Aside from UFOs that aren't aerodyne-craft (don't use forward motion & airflow to make lift), there are a few observations about other things lumped into the term "UFO" and into the counter-culture surrounding them.

One of the first modern reports was the Arnold sighting over Washington, Near Mt Ranier.
He did not report seeing discs or hovering objects. 8 were nearly circular "horse-shoe shaped", and one was a parabola all-wing, nearly the size of a DC-4.
It could be the spitting image of the Cheranovsky BICh-3 and 7a which flew fairly well, over a decade earlier. Cheranovsky felt sure it could work without the tail, but given the day and budget, the fin was added. The 3 had an engine of 18hp, and maintained level flight on only 16hp. Both were fairly fast, and the 7a earned a flightworthyness certification and several pilots who flew it proved that it handled fairly conventionally.
We also know that the Arup planes flew very successfully in the early-mid-30s, showing that a nearly circular planform could work, and the Nemeth plane had a tailed circular wing and flew very well. Arup had designs for tail-less planes. With jets, they would have looked very eerie. (Perhaps turned around so that round edge was the nose, it leads us to the later Avro project Y)
Any of these, if worked up to 1947 technology, might have been mach-2 secret planes. But who, and why weren't they anything to history but curiosities and funny stories about aliens? By throwing the Arnold sighting in with various "ET alien" discs, it might lead us astray from investigating what they might have been.

It's interesting that a few years later, Avro was working on their circular car which was an early testing model for an airjeep, but also for better versions called variously Project-Y (photo of a mock-up shown (wikipedia and many other mentions of it), and with circular wing by the USAF as Project 1794 and Project 606.
Some of these used the VTO effect to shorten take-off as well as ducting power-plant jet exhaust aft for thrust and hovering tail-down. Rather than VTOL either nose-up or level, assisting it in just being STOL might have been less of the sort of problem that made the Avrocar unworkable. 606 minimized the importance of this arrangement and worked toward fairly normal, if round, STOL planes; a large departure from the Avro Project Y or the aerocar. We've seen that various iterations of circle can fly, and maybe fly well, though they'd be far from anything that hovers silently.
Project Y is almost the exact silhouette of 8 of the things Arnold saw, a few years earlier, as well as the photo from the '47 sighting in Arizona.

Several images follow. Last groups are from various sites about the Avro
.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 17, 2018)

Funny thing about Arnold's sighting, is that it bears a strong resemblance to the Horton's Parabola.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 17, 2018)

John Frazer said:


> Aside from UFOs that aren't aerodyne-craft (don't use forward motion & airflow to make lift), there are a few observations about other things lumped into the term "UFO" and into the counter-culture surrounding them.


It's important to remember that words have meaning: UFO means Unidentified Flying Object, so it doesn't have to be an alien vehicle, just something you can't identify at the time. I've seen lots of them, though for only a fraction of a second, as they became IFO's at that point when my brain figured out what they were 


> One of the first modern reports was the Arnold sighting over Washington, Near Mt Ranier. . . He did not report seeing discs or hovering objects. 8 were nearly circular "horse-shoe shaped", and one was a parabola all-wing, nearly the size of a DC-4.


If that's based on span, whatever he saw was 115-120 feet. He said supposedly it was traveling at 1800 mph...


> Any of these, if worked up to 1947 technology, might have been mach-2 secret planes. But who, and why weren't they anything to history but curiosities and funny stories about aliens? By throwing the Arnold sighting in with various "ET alien" discs, it might lead us astray from investigating what they might have been.


True, plus it would be a good way to justify world government: Claim thee's a threat from "beyond" and we all need to join together to "fight" it .


----------



## PWR4360-59B (Aug 18, 2018)

The real UFO's do things an aircraft can not. They most always never have any sort of aerodynamic power source either, like a prop or jet etc. and their movements are more closely related to what a magnetic device would do. Its more like they are in a field than in air. And in many cases especially in the 50's and 60's they had electromagnetic effects on electrical devices. You don't hear too many reports now about that sort of thing.


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 18, 2018)

PWR4360-59B said:


> their movements are more closely related to what a magnetic device would do. Its more like they are in a field than in air. And in many cases especially in the 50's and 60's they had electromagnetic effects on electrical devices. You don't hear too many reports now about that sort of thing.


Actually there are some kind of piezoelectric phenomena that can produce glowing that you can see. They often look like balls flying all over the place.


----------



## PWR4360-59B (Aug 20, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> Actually there are some kind of piezoelectric phenomena that can produce glowing that you can see. They often look like balls flying all over the place.


Yeah but they don't hover over a sub station tipping so you can tell it is saucer shaped for a whole night class at a school to see, and also at the same time cause effects on tv's near by and on the phone system, then take off heading south east.


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 20, 2018)

PWR4360-59B said:


> Yeah but they don't hover over a sub station tipping so you can tell it is saucer shaped for a whole night class at a school to see, and also at the same time cause effects on tv's near by and on the phone system, then take off heading south east.


Was this a real case?


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 20, 2018)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## PWR4360-59B (Aug 21, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> Was this a real case?


Yes, I don't know if any of the people reported it, I saw the electrical effects from it. Some one I know well was in the class that saw it. That happened in the 70's.


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 21, 2018)

maxmwill said:


> Here's a bomber that might not have been mentioned yet, and it is a stealth bomber, although radar had yet to be developed. "Stealth" in this case refers to the fact that it was covered in transparent fabric so it would be more difficult to see, and the engines were buried, to. The Linke Hofmann R1. It was a failure.


The Boeing Bird of Prey had a "cloaking device of sorts



PWR4360-59B said:


> Yes, I don't know if any of the people reported it, I saw the electrical effects from it.


You were there shortly after it left?


----------



## PWR4360-59B (Aug 22, 2018)

I was about a mile from it, and experienced the electrical effects.


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 22, 2018)

PWR4360-59B said:


> I was about a mile from it, and experienced the electrical effects.


What kind of electrical effects?


----------



## PWR4360-59B (Aug 22, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> What kind of electrical effects?


Yeah but they don't hover over a sub station tipping so you can tell it is saucer shaped for a whole night class at a school to see, and also at the same time cause effects on tv's near by and on the phone system, then take off heading south east.

I mentioned it in above post. It hard to explain all the details and it was too many years ago.


----------



## GregP (Aug 29, 2018)

The early Airup was VERY impressive for 36 hp. And 115 mph is enough for a Cessna 172 to have been built in numbers more than 46,000. 115 mph is NOT very impressive for a military fighter, but the projected 500 mph for the Vought XF5U would have been a nice fighter around a carrier.

I think the low-aspect ratio planes had potential that remains unexplored.

The Payen low-aspect ratio planes had very good performance for the installed power. The PA-22 achieved 224 mph from 180 hp.






A Cessna 172 RG can only WISH it could do as well, and it has retractable gear. The Payen Pa 49 Katy. is shown below.






It managed 311 mph in 330 lbs of thrust. If any modern fighter could do that, we all jump up and down. To achieve the same sped to thrust, an English Electric Lightning would have had to go 30,157 mph, or faster than the Space Shuttle. To be fair, the F-15 would have to go 45,085 mph to get the same effeciency.

It is possible we have overlooked the desirable characteristics of low aspect ratio planes for many years. It is also possible that low aspect ratio layouts have been explored and found seriously wanting in areas that cannot be overlooked. However, I'd say the F-105 and Mirage-type fighters have shown the layout CAN be useful. I'd like to see an Airup-type design with a modern look and powerplant before dismissing it out of hand.

Aerodynamicist Barnaby Wainfan designed a low aspect ratio plane called the facetmobile. See below.






It goes 110 mph on 50 hp. Not too shabby.


----------



## PWR4360-59B (Aug 29, 2018)

Wow that looks scary, I bet it would flat spin easy.


----------



## GregP (Aug 30, 2018)

He named it "Facetmobile" but, in a spin, it might be better called "Frisbee."


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 30, 2018)

According to his site it was stall and spin resistant Facetmobile Home Page


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Aug 30, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> According to his site it was stall and spin resistant Facetmobile Home Page


As never claimed before by any designer/builder of strange-layout aircraft.


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 30, 2018)

Yep


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 31, 2018)

Has anyone ever heard of a designer of a different looking aircraft *ever *saying his design was stall and spin prone?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## John Frazer (Jun 13, 2019)

Do any of you have any reason, besides ignorance and skepticism, to doubt the word of Wainfan? He stated as much in the NASA report he authored after they commissioned a study on it.
I challenge anyone to prove he lied and that NASA accepted it or said it was wrong.

The Arups were also stall and spin proof, as was the Nemeth "parachute plane". 
In his NASA funded report, Wainfan writes about the "Vortex lift" such very low-aspect ratio planes can use.
They do _NOT_ always drag around a burden of heavy induced drag due to wing-tip vortices. That is the most common myth about the type (they do not and never did need outward-turning exaggerated-size, plane-changing props to "counter" vortices).
The pilot may elect to use "parachute lift" or "vortex lift", at around 50% power to stay aloft at super-slow speeds. The wing-tip vortices capture the airflow over the top of the leading edge and keep it from separating. The plane does not stall, even if it's flying too slow with the nose held up, that it descends.
The airflow stays on top of the wing, and the vortices "capture a "bubble" of low pressure above-behind it, giving it increased lift.

This is science, not tall tales by braggart plane designers.

The same thing reported for the Nemeth, the Arups, the Little Bird, the Facetmobile.


----------



## GregP (Jun 14, 2019)

About the XF5U-1 never getting airborne, all the references I have ever seen to it say that the program was behind schedule and over budget, and that the Navy saw that jets were going to be the coming thing. They decided to cancel it rather than fund it to completion, and the prototype was transferred to Smithsonian for display. The V-173 flew in 1943, and the two XF5U-1s were cancelled in 1946. 

Apparently, they never solved the vibration issues and the only completed XF5U-1 made several "hops" down the runway, but never true flight. It was apparently VERY structurally strong. I have always wondered why they never flew at least a test programs on it. Many designs where the power had to change direction from the crankshaft suffered from vibration. The P-39 / P-63 series comes to mind. The U-joint make a distance noise and vibration. The Osprey comes to mind, as do the experimentals with titlrotors. 

The XF5UI-1 was basically a tiltrotor aircraft configuration that did not tilt. That is, the configuration was very similar to later tiltrotors when they were in fixed-wing flight, but the props were small enough to not require tilting for ground clearance.


----------



## John Frazer (Jul 12, 2019)

GregP said:


> . I have always wondered why they never flew at least a test programs on it. Many designs where the power had to change direction from the crankshaft suffered from vibration.



Funny they never asked boat designers to make gearboxes/drivetrains. Aviation around that time never seemed to get it right.

As for jets taking over, this is at best a convenient excuse.
The Navy and AF continued using piston/prop planes for combat into the '70s and for support roles into the 80s. Still operating props. a 5500 horsepower powerplant (like on the A2D Sky Shark)for a single contra-prop on a body like the XF5U would have been amazing and still STOL.
A flapjack like the Sikorsky designs would have been awesome with jets -far passing anything for another 20 years. They distracted things with Zimmerman's pet theories about shaping the slip-stream, discarded everything about the Nemeth, Arup, Eshelman, and struggled on trying to make decent STOL planes.


----------



## John Frazer (Jul 12, 2019)

GregP said:


> The Payen low-aspect ratio planes had very good performance for the installed power. The PA-22 achieved 224 mph from 180 hp.
> View attachment 507775
> 
> 
> ...



See also the earlier Payen/Aubrun AP-10, 1935
Much more like these other round planes

from 24 to 107+kts on 40 horsepower. empty 200kg, gross340kg


----------



## John Frazer (Jul 12, 2019)

BTW, The maker of the Facetmobile, Mr Wainfan has a day job in the industry


----------



## John Frazer (Jul 30, 2019)




----------



## John Frazer (Jul 30, 2019)

GrauGeist said:
> The Arup S-2... eventually crashed.

That remains unknown. Some reports say it was sold to a stunt-flyer who crashed planes for airshows.
Mid-Atlantic Air Museum in 2015 reported that they received something claimed to be the original S-2, intact. They've not retraced that claim on the post reporting it
By all appearances, the 2 and 4 flew on until age of the airframe retired them.

 


> The Ford... Model 15-P held solid promise, but the War sidelined the project.

It's crappy performance grounded it, and the war sidelined any future development.

Note that to this day, not a single tail-less all-wing has produced a safe, reliable utilitarian plane that was other than highly risky, experimental, not at all ready for the consumer.
This includes the Horten sport gliders before/during/after the war, the 229, the modern Horten HX-2 with wing-tip fins, and it includes the B-2.
Many designers tried to do so, all gave up on tail-less and on only wing-tip fins, and produced workable planes when they sensibly settled on a center fin/rudder, behind the prop.
The Ford probably would have also.


----------



## gumbyk (Jul 31, 2019)

John Frazer said:


> Note that to this day, not a single tail-less all-wing has produced a safe, reliable utilitarian plane that was other than highly risky, experimental, not at all ready for the consumer.


There might be a few hang glider and powered trike pilots that dispute that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 31, 2019)

John Frazer said:


> Note that to this day, not a single tail-less all-wing has produced a safe, reliable utilitarian plane that was other than highly risky, experimental, not at all ready for the consumer.
> This includes the Horten sport gliders before/during/after the war, the 229, the modern Horten HX-2 with wing-tip fins, *and it includes the B-2*.


Pretty sure the combat record and performance of the B-2 blows that assumption out of the water...


----------



## John Frazer (Jul 31, 2019)

gumbyk said:


> There might be a few hang glider and powered trike pilots that dispute that.


Have their planes been certified as airworthy by appropriate authorities, or sold or used long-term by other than the designers and other test pilots, or sport pilots willing to sign waivers and take their chances?


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 31, 2019)

From here...Hang Gliding Frequently Asked Questions

*How safe are hang gliders?*

As safe as the person flying them. Like any form of sport aviation, hang gliding can be dangerous if pursued carelessly. Gliders in the US are now certified for airworthiness by the Hang Glider Manufacturers Assn. (HGMA). Also, hang gliding instruction has been standardized and students learn from certified instructors using a thorough gradual training program. Despite these advances, people still make judgment errors and aviation is not very forgiving of such. The majority of pilots fly their entire careers without sustaining a serious injury.

2003...http://www.paraglidingforum.com/files/aw_specs_262.pdf

Germany...https://www.dhv.de/fileadmin/user_u...n/technik/tec_downloads/LTF2009_Eng_final.pdf


----------



## gumbyk (Jul 31, 2019)

John Frazer said:


> Have their planes been certified as airworthy by appropriate authorities, or sold or used long-term by other than the designers and other test pilots, or sport pilots willing to sign waivers and take their chances?


Yes, yes, and yes.
Commercial hang gliding operations are available in many places; maybe not under FAA jurisdiction, but that's not my area of knowledge.


----------



## John Frazer (Jul 31, 2019)

John Frazer said:


> Note that to this day, not a single tail-less all-wing has produced a safe, reliable utilitarian plane that was other than highly risky, experimental, not at all ready for the consumer.
> This includes the Horten sport gliders before/during/after the war, the 229, the modern Horten HX-2 with wing-tip fins, and it includes the B-2.



Hang gliders. Right. "Not under FAA jurisdiction". I did say utilitarian airworthy planes. Ultralights too, though they're not sold as certified planes. Hardly anyone builds lifting bodies or tailed all-wings anyway.

And it does fit the B2. Only 20 made, already being phased out and horribly expensive, all are besides the point of aeronautics I was making.
The crew are highly trained highly paid military officers, probably test pilots in their own, and they only ride sealed into ejection seats so that they can get out at any moment. If they have damage or problems & stall and start to spin, there's nothing for it but to get out, and that's not safe, reliable, utilitarian.
The military has no problem putting crews into horrendous death traps and the contractors and military big-wigs sing their praises and throw money at them to keep them flying.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 1, 2019)

John Frazer said:


> Hang gliders. Right. "Not under FAA jurisdiction". I did say utilitarian airworthy planes. Ultralights too, though they're not sold as certified planes. Hardly anyone builds lifting bodies or tailed all-wings anyway.
> 
> And it does fit the B2. Only 20 made, already being phased out and horribly expensive, all are besides the point of aeronautics I was making.
> The crew are highly trained highly paid military officers, probably test pilots in their own, and they only ride sealed into ejection seats so that they can get out at any moment. If they have damage or problems & stall and start to spin, there's nothing for it but to get out, and that's not safe, reliable, utilitarian.
> The military has no problem putting crews into horrendous death traps and the contractors and military big-wigs sing their praises and throw money at them to keep them flying.



Which aircraft are you classifying as death traps and based on what criteria?

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## gumbyk (Aug 1, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> Which aircraft are you classifying as death traps and based on what criteria?
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff


Obviously, anything without a tail.

I'm just trying to work out if delta-wing aircraft have tails or not...


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 1, 2019)

According to some people what makes the B-2 "work" is that it is controlled by computers with control surface deflections rapid enough (and sometimes small enough) that they could not be applied by a human pilot using mechanical/hydraulic means. 

However right or wrong this may be as a design philosophy there are a number of modern aircraft with tails that have stability issues (some designed in) that require computers and/or computer controlled control surfaces in order to remain stable even in level flight. The F-16 is one of them. 
And as we are finding out with the 737 Max, even conventional appearing (it has a tail) commercial aircraft are flown by computers with 'suggestions' from the crew as to control surface deflections to achieve certain flight goals (like climbing or diving).

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 2, 2019)

John Frazer said:


> Hang gliders. Right. "Not under FAA jurisdiction". I did say utilitarian airworthy planes. Ultralights too, though they're not sold as certified planes. Hardly anyone builds lifting bodies or tailed all-wings anyway.
> 
> And it does fit the B2. Only 20 made, already being phased out and horribly expensive, all are besides the point of aeronautics I was making.
> The crew are highly trained highly paid military officers, probably test pilots in their own, and they only ride sealed into ejection seats so that they can get out at any moment. If they have damage or problems & stall and start to spin, there's nothing for it but to get out, and that's not safe, reliable, utilitarian.
> The military has no problem putting crews into horrendous death traps and the contractors and military big-wigs sing their praises and throw money at them to keep them flying.



John Fazer,

I have to respectfully disagree with you on a few items.

First, while the stated plan is to retire the B-2s by mid 2030s, I wouldn’t hold my breath. Military history shows that programs are routinely cut, modified, and or stopped at the whims of the yearly budget or continuing resolution.

Second, fly by wire (FBW), is here to stay. As said by SR6, the F-16 does not fly without it, even though it has a conventional tail. To be clear, the plane is not controllable with out a functioning FBW system. We lost one on an ocean crossing when a mid air resulted in it losing the radome. The AOA sensors are located there. No sensors, no controllable flight. The North Pacific Ocean is cold in the winter time. I would guess the F22 is the same in that it’s unfyable without FBW, and the F35, and probably every new fighter design from now on.

Third, to answer your comments about highly trained, test pilots with no other option but to eject should there be battle damage or problems. Yes, highly trained is good. Uncle Sam gets some big dollar items from your tax dollars and wants to keep them for a long time, and good training is a sound investment. Second, we are taught when a situation warrants jumping out of an aircraft, or as we say, giving it back to the tax payer. However not all situations are covered and that is where airmanship and experience come in. Far more guys have died trying to save an aircraft than have punched out when they should not have. 

As for the death traps, I haven’t seen one yet.

As for the highly paid officers comment. I look at it from two ways. Firstly the DoD determines what pay is and I think in the end it’s based on what’s affordable inside the confines of the budget. Secondly, regardless of officer or enlisted, attacking an heavily defended target by air or ground is not done for pay. The picture that comes to mind, is from the back of a landing craft off shore from Normandy, with a bunch a 20 year olds who are about to be landed. Or the guys who routinely do patrols in the Middle East right now. Trust me when I say they don’t do it for the money, and the pay isn’t enough. 

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 2, 2019)

To expand a little on the B-2, the primary issue the Air Force has with it, is the stealth coating which needs constant maintenance - otherwise, it is front-line hardware that fits a mission profile that no other aircraft in the Air Force inventory can do.

Additionally, only one B-2 has ever been lost during flight, and it was due to condensation in one of it's sensors, causing an error in calibration which in turn caused erroneous airspeed and AoA during take-off - a condition the pilots couldn't correct...this all being covered in Buff and SR's posts above.


----------



## John Frazer (Aug 2, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> To expand a little on the B-2... it is front-line hardware that fits a mission profile that no other aircraft in the Air Force inventory can do.
> 
> Additionally, only one B-2 has ever been lost during flight, and it was due to condensation in one of it's sensors, causing an error in calibration which in turn caused erroneous airspeed and AoA during take-off - a condition the pilots couldn't correct...this all being covered in Buff and SR's posts above.


It's not a question about it fitting the mission, it's about it being a safe forgiving aerodynamic design, and without extensive expensive training and especially computerized control maintaining stability and flyability, it isn't.
Wrong handling and no expensive controls or sensors, and it dies. At least in a 747 or Cessna, you have some kind of chance if things are less than 100% peachy.

That there are finned tailed planes that fly only with expensive controls doesn't change my statement about tailless-all-wings.


----------



## John Frazer (Aug 2, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> Which aircraft are you classifying as death traps and based on what criteria?
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff


A-20 is an excellent example. Yes the Red Army air force sings its praises, as do other services, whose generals and propaganda ministers are highly trained and paid to do as ordered.

 

USAAF 1944 training video: it's not at all an aerobatic airplane. Stalls at over 200 in a steep bank. Stalls right ahead and recovers nicely with power off, but don't _DO_NOT_ try a power-on stall because it spins viciously.
If you find yourself in a spin below 5000', bail out, but first make sure you stop and feather both engines or you might as well ride it down.
Easy meat for any fighter; Just look at it, and it's as good as dead. It's anybody's guess how many crews it killed with such awful handling. 
There have been others accepted into services, and maybe tried out until they're too terrible and quietly phased out. History is full of such things.

Early Japanese planes were also. Some with barely better flying characteristics, and flammable as anything a Chinese theater pilot could hope for.
The Russian Il-2 was pressed into manufacture exactly as the first models to take to the air because Stalin liked them and he'd execute any engineer who said it might need development time. Who knows if it was good or not, except by listening to the Red Army propaganda, all of whom would be executed if they said anything different.
The Sherman is hailed as winning the war, but the crews know it had one of the highest kill and casualty rates of any part of the service. Known as the Ronson, outclassed by almost anything in the European theater. The Escort and light carriers were tinderboxes, just waiting for any fire or hit near a magazine. Most Japanese ships too. Liberty ships broke up handily when hit.
Crews knew that about any of these things, no matter the propaganda of service or manufacturers or politicians in whose districts they're made.


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 2, 2019)

Not too sure a medium bomber was meant to be an "aerobatic aircraft"


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 2, 2019)

John Frazer said:


> A-20 is an excellent example. Yes the Red Army air force sings its praises, as do other services, whose generals and propaganda ministers are highly trained and paid to do as ordered.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





John Frazer,

The A-20? By what standards, todays or the late 30s / early 40s? Aviation did not have its act together then as it does now. And yes, at that time in the war you took what you had and worked with it and learned what worked or didn’t as you went along.

The Japanese didn’t care if they lost pilots, they were basically expendable. Why would aircraft represent a different philosophical view than they had of their own pilots. Russia wasn’t much better. Joe Stalin really did not value any life other than his own, and every part of how they approached war reflected that. The Brits started with the long game, the BoB forced them into a fight for survival (short term), then back to the long. The Germans went from what I call the medium game to eventually the short game as the war wore on. Still they made pressurized fighters and bombers. Those were inventions that looked out for the aviators.

The US took the long game point of view but it wasn’t perfect by any means. Everything was being done on a scale not seen before or since. So much of aviation was new or undiscovered and it was learned as things progressed. Look at the performance of a fighter built in 39 vice one in 45. G suits, survival gear, clothing, all improved or were invented as they went along. Gun sights, fuel, guns, ammo, fuel systems, blowers, turbos, the list goes on. What didn’t improve?

I think you are looking at isolated events vice the system as a whole.

Just my opine.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 2, 2019)

A-20

Easy meat for fighters??

One Russian pilot used one to photograph well over a score of eastern european cities on photo recon missions. Single plane (unescorted) in daylight. 

The A-20 had a much better combat record than you suggest. A number of pilots used them to score air to air victories as intruders over German AIrfields during the night Blitz. 

A number of crews made it home flying on one engine. 

The Be2c of WW I was a wonderfully stable airplane. It was so stable the pilot had to use all his strength to get it to turn or maneuver which meant it was shot down in droves by twitcher, less stable aircraft. Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Aug 3, 2019)

GregP said:


> It managed 311 mph in 330 lbs of thrust. If any modern fighter could do that, we all jump up and down. To achieve the same sped to thrust, an English Electric Lightning would have had to go 30,157 mph, or faster than the Space Shuttle. To be fair, the F-15 would have to go 45,085 mph to get the same effeciency.



So we're looking at a thrust to speed ratio of close to 1:1?
For the same time period check out the *Somers Kendall SK-1*. It had a slightly better thrust to speed ratio than the Katy (named after Payen's daughter) using the same engine, plus you get a retractable undercarriage, better climb and range and with more cockpit space - enough for a passenger. Also looks like a miniature He-162....which is kinda cool.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Aug 3, 2019)

Somewhere around 1:1.28

And very light. 

Jet version of the Cri-Cri...

Colomban Cri-cri - Wikipedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 3, 2019)

John Frazer said:


> It's not a question about it fitting the mission, it's about it being a safe forgiving aerodynamic design, and without extensive expensive training and especially computerized control maintaining stability and flyability, it isn't.
> Wrong handling and no expensive controls or sensors, and it dies. At least in a 747 or Cessna, you have some kind of chance if things are less than 100% peachy.
> 
> That there are finned tailed planes that fly only with expensive controls doesn't change my statement about tailless-all-wings.


I'm going to go out on a limb here, but all your postulations smell considerably of opinion and speculation, as opposed to positions backed by fact and hard data.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Aug 3, 2019)

Whatever faults the A-20 had, it would sound pretty sweet to all those crews coming off Blenheims ...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 3, 2019)

John Frazer said:


> And it does fit the B2. Only 20 made, already being phased out and horribly expensive, all are besides the point of aeronautics I was making.



It's quite obvious that you have some arm chair opinions here, so I'll re-educate:

21 B-2s were built because the original contract of 165 was cut by George Bush, a result of the end of the cold war. It was a costly program but with 30 years of steady service, it served well. Although it's successor is on the horizon, I see it serving for at least another 10 years. With over 30 years of steady service and each aircraft has about 6000 flight hours, there was one class one accident in 30 years. Do the math.



John Frazer said:


> The military has no problem putting crews into horrendous death traps and the contractors and military big-wigs sing their praises and throw money at them to keep them flying.



This is one of the most ignorant comments I've read on here in quite a long time. In today's world it seems you have no concept of the value the US military places on the lives of it's aviators (and I'm speaking all branches). I'd like you to accurately quantify that statement with facts. Unless you've served in the military and/or worked on these "horrendous death traps." I suggest keeping the bollicks to a minimum as it makes you look quite foolish to those of us who worked on these machines. (I was on the B-2 program in 1990)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Aug 3, 2019)

Greyman said:


> Whatever faults the A-20 had ...



Cherry-picked quotes ... but everything the British had to say about the flying characteristics/maneuverability of the aircraft is pretty glowing.

A&AEE handling trials on a French DB7, April 1940:
_The aeroplane is very pleasant to fly, has no vices and is easy to take-off and land. Handling with one engine cut is exceptionally good._

_Summary of flying characteristics. This aeroplane represents a definite advance in the design of flying controls. The designer has achieved controls which, while being light enough to obtain full movement at quite high speeds, are in no way overbalanced for small movements. As a result the aircraft is extremely pleasant to fly and manoeuvre. The tricycle undercarriage makes take-off, landing and ground handling very simple, and pilots should be able to fly the type successfully with the minimum of instruction._

AFDU Tactical Trials on a Boston II, July 1941:
_The Boston can easily evade all attacks except for an astern attack by turning steeply towards the attacking fighter._

_When attacked from astern, the Boston should evade either by a series of skids as it tries to draw the enemy away or by a tight turn. If the aircraft is slowed down and 15-30 degrees of flap applied it can practically out-turn a Hurricane._

AFDU Tactical Trials on a Boston III, May 1942:
_General The Boston III is an extremely manoeuvrable aircraft, the controls being light and positive, only stiffening very slightly at high speed. The single engine flying characteristics are good and the aircraft can still manoeuvre well if one engine is out of action. ..._

_A single Boston can present a fighter with a very difficult target and can on occasion bring its own four front guns to bear if the fighter breaks away on the bow. Skidding, undulating and throttling back are useful forms of evasion but by far the most effective are a tight turn if menaced by only one fighter, or a corkscrewing movement against several fighters._

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 3, 2019)

John Frazer said:


> The whole question of "if they were good, where are they today" is a red herring. "The market" had no interest in a good thing. It's not the first time in aviation history that a good idea withered on the vine because of customer inattention. Again, that doesn't speak against the concept or model type.




It does if the market and conditions don't change or change slowly. 

Market forces include cost of construction and operating costs (fuel costs) among others.


Very slow aircraft have little market appeal. Especially today. Airfields, even ones for general aviation are much larger than they were in the 20s and 30s and STOL designs, while fascinating, are not needed for the vast majority of aircraft. 

Efficiency can change radically with speed, an efficient aircraft just over 100mph can be a high drag fuel hog at higher speeds. Likewise a low drag/high speed design can be inefficient/high drag when configured for low speed (slats and flaps out and high angle of attack). 

When thinking about some of these old aircraft we also have to careful not to confuse cause and effect.

ARUP S-2





not the best downward vision for landing for a light plane. But the thick monoplane wing offered a freedom from the wires and struts common to aircraft of it's time. Landing gear looks pretty good for an airplane of it's era too. Was the speed because of the novel wing planform or in part due to the absence of struts/wires? 

another picture





Forward vision doesn't look good let alone downward. Great streamlining didn't always make for a marketable plane for the masses.

Later (larger) versions moved the cockpit forward. 

S-4 may have performed well but it may have been a bit lacking in some other areas. It used an 85hp Cirrus engine that burned about 6 gallons an hour and had a 16 gallon fuel tank.

The Fairchild C-8 (beginning of the Fairchild 24 series) used a 95hp Cirrius at 6,5 gallons an hour and had a 24 gallon capacity and could hold 236lb of passenger and baggage. Yes it was slower than the Arup S-4 but you could enter through doors in the side. It had better vision downward. 

The empty weight for the S-4 as given in Wiki seems a bit low but it could be a mistake, we have no payload or gross weight to judge load carrying ability. 

The NACA was interested in all sort of aircraft or design features at the time (late 20s and the 30s) that doesn't mean they all were good ideas that got ignored. 

The Concord is not a good example as it is a classic case of changing markets. It was introduced in the mid 70s although first flight was in 1969. It started service just a few years after the great gas/oil crunch of 1973 and even jet fuel had skyrocketed in price so much that the whole operating economics of operating these aircraft had to be rethought. A large reason that only 14 went into commercial service. In the 13-14 years before the gas crunch the price of gas and jet fuel had been pretty stable or at least risen on a somewhat predictable path. 
The early environmental movement also targeted them. Sometimes stupidly. A number of years later there was talk about allowing them to land at Hartford/Springfield Airport and protests marches were planned to "_Stop the Concord". _ a lot of effort for minimal result. the plane had gone out of production years before and no more were going to made and the only reason to land one at Hartford/Springfield Airport was in an emergency or in case it's real destination was closed due to weather.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 3, 2019)

Graeme said:


> Somewhere around 1:1.28
> 
> And very light.
> 
> ...




He looks like Super Dave Osborne...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## John Frazer (Aug 5, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> John Frazer,
> 
> The A-20? By what standards, todays or the late 30s / early 40s?





Greyman said:


> Cherry-picked quotes ...



Apparently by the standards of the USAAF in '44, it came with severe cautions.
Again, whatever some pilots of other services said about it, this is what the Army told its pilots.


----------



## John Frazer (Aug 5, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Very slow aircraft have little market appeal.


97mph on 37 HP for 900lbs, isn't that slow. NACA was impressed with it.

Hatfield practically bragged about efficiency. Are you saying he was lying, exaggerating/deluded? NASA report about the Facetmobile said it was slick and efficient, other "all-wing" or fuselage-less planes have also done very well for speed / power and fuel / range. What else is there?



> not the best downward vision for landing for a light plane.



By some reports, USN gave up on the Corsair as a naval plane because it had atrocious vision and their pilots couldn't see the ship to land it on. The RAF must have had a few older biplane pilots, because the pilot sits in the back.

(I said RAF, of course I meant RN)


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 5, 2019)

WHAT???????????????? I was suspicious at first but this guy is definitely a troll


----------



## John Frazer (Aug 5, 2019)

Highly expensive and risky military plane does not make a successful commercial or forgiving plane design. Whatever you say about the B-2, it isn't.
I stand by what I said about the Ford and other tail-less planes.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 5, 2019)

John Frazer said:


> Highly expensive and risky military plane does not make a successful commercial or forgiving plane design. Whatever you say about the B-2, it isn't.
> I stand by what I said about the Ford and other tail-less planes.


And again its apparent you have neither the experience or credentials to make such a statement.


----------



## John Frazer (Aug 5, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And again its apparent you have neither the experience or credentials to make such a statement.


One design? of a military pane that cannot lead to a commercial advance?



fubar57 said:


> WHAT???????????????? I was suspicious at first but this guy is definitely a troll


Blah blah blah blah blah.
No substantive answers, just personality attacks and bluster.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 5, 2019)

John Frazer said:


> Blah blah blah blah blah.
> No substantive answers, just personality attacks and bluster.


Yep - and now it's your turn to take a time out

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 5, 2019)

Someone who doesn't know that the FAA flew the Corsair

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 5, 2019)

Unsubstantiated comments and troll-like responses will not be tolerated.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 5, 2019)

Interesting...I never knew the USN "gave up" on the F4U.

Did anyone bother to tell the Japanese?

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 6, 2019)

Let's see, according the cube root law that plane would have needed 430hp to go 220mph.

Real 1931-32 airplane that used 550hp to go 220mph. 







It carried 5-6 passengers in addition to the pilot. View from the cockpit may not have been Ideal but sure beat the ARUP aircraft. Access to aircraft is though doors in the side (and step stool) not climbing though a hatch in the Belly. 

For something a bit closer in size the Barling NB-3




Certified in 1929, 65hp engine, performance in "US civil Aircraft is at odds with Wiki" 100mph top speed, landing speed 37mph. with 18 gal of fuel and 170 pilot it was rated at 340lbs of payload, two 170 passengers side by side in the front cockpit. 

Certified in 1928




110hp engine, 125MPH top speed, Pilot, 40-42 gallons of fuel, 3 passengers (ot 550lb payload not counting pilot and fuel) stalling speed 42-45mph. 

These planes were exceptions. But the idea that ARUPs offered something so far out of the ordinary that only some sort of conspiracy or large scale stupidity kept them from taking over a large share of the market may need a rethink.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Aug 6, 2019)

John Frazer said:


> 97mph on 37 HP for 900lbs, isn't that slow. NACA was impressed with it.



Performance dropped off rapidly with a 30(?) HP Szekeley engine to the point where pilots couldn't get it off the ground.
What was Hatfield's trick to get it into the air?


----------



## Wurger (Aug 6, 2019)




----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 6, 2019)

John Frazer said:


> Apparently by the standards of the USAAF in '44, it came with severe cautions.
> Again, whatever some pilots of other services said about it, this is what the Army told its pilots.



John Frazer,

You are talking about the same Army that had P38 pilots operating their Allison’s NOT in accordance with the manufacturers guidelines? Or the same Army that ignored Chennault reports regards the combat lessons learned / earned against the Japanese? 

What I’ve read regarding the A-20 has been very positive. Be careful using one data point as it could represent only a single / small groups experience and not the vast majority.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 6, 2019)

To get back to the changing markets (and the years that it took to change them) see this article
https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1941/1941 - 0898.PDF

Mr. Fowler claims to have had the idea for his flap in 1916. It is not tested on an aircraft until 1927 (at his own expense) but as he relates in the Article, since most aircraft of the time were biplanes with low wing loading it didn't offer much improvement (my interpretation) however with the increase in use or interest in monoplanes the "market" for such a device increased and finally Lockheed used it on the Model 14 nearly 20 years after it was first conceived. It is still used on many aircraft today including a host of small STOL machines.

The increased use of flaps (of many designs) during the 30s may have been what regulated the ARUP planes and the other large wing area/low aspect ratio planes to the side lines.
A designer could get higher speed by using a small wing and high wing loading and yet keep landing speeds within reason by using flaps.

Lockheed found that fitting plain split flaps to the Orion pictured above allowed for an increase in gross weight of 400lbs and also cut the landing speed by 8-9mph.

This may have been the first non experimental plane fitted with Fowler type flaps.




Fieseler Fi 97 of 1934. 5 built.
See Fieseler Fi 97 - Wikipedia Also used Handley Page automatic slats over 1/2 the span and had a minimum control speed of 38-39mph.

With such add on high lift devices the need for the large wing area/low aspect ratio planes in order to fly slow or in and out of small fields was much diminished.

The Market had changed while the ARUPs were being developed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Aug 6, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> John Fazer,
> 
> I have to respectfully disagree with you on a few items.
> 
> ...


Just to echo what you said about pilots staying with planes and trying to save them. I can't count the number of times I've read about instances of pilots risking and sometimes giving there lives to try and save planes when in trouble when they could have just bailed out. From WW2 to present.
Got to admire that kind of bravery and dedication.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Aug 6, 2019)

John Frazer said:


> A-20 is an excellent example. Yes the Red Army air force sings its praises, as do other services, whose generals and propaganda ministers are highly trained and paid to do as ordered.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My impression from what ive read is that both the A20 and at least early war Japanese planes like the A6m and Ki43 had outstanding handling characteristics.
I'm curious what you've read that makes you believe they did not.


----------



## denoferth (Aug 8, 2019)

stona said:


> A UFO is just that, an Unidentified Flying Object. For me the least rational of all possible explanations is that they have come from another planet/galaxy/time (delete as you like).
> Cheers
> Steve


In 1963 my then-fiancé and I watched through the car windshield a softly glowing thick disk-shaped object the size of a small four-room house move in complete silence over our front from horizon to horizon approximately 100 - 150 feet high doing no more than 20-25 mph. It passed so close I had to lean over the dash to see it pass over as we parked on a steep hillside above Sunset Beach, near Claysville, Pennsylvania. Once you see an actual machine, not just a strange light in the sky, dewdrop on a spiderweb or insect back-lit by the sun up close and personal the argument whether they exist or not from those without that experience gets pretty old. Since then I've seen enough not to get too overly excited about strange unidentifiable lights in the sky. But having said that there seems to be two kinds of people responding to these threads; those who’ve actually seen something unexplainable and those blabbering away with religiously held “opinions” about something they know nothing about. My curse on those folks is to hope they too see an up-close "machine" for long enough to fry their brain THEN try to rationalize it away with dumb comments. You see after you DO actually see something real you’ll spend lots of time attempting to figure out just what the hell it could have been. Unfortunately, even more, time will be spent listening to inane comments and being called names by pompous fools, terrified cupcakes and know-it-all blowhards which is probably why many never tell a soul they saw anything. Anybody who knows the public history of our governments UFO studies realizes it started with “they exist”, went into “total denial, only nuts see them mode” to “maybe we can explain some away” to "everythings classified". Long story short; machines that outperform everything we have, utilizing physics we can’t comprehend invade our airspace with impunity and we can’t do anything about it so those tasked with guarding that airspace either deny, ridicule or ignore their existence. Oh, and it’s been going on as long as homosap has been around.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mikewint (Aug 8, 2019)

Kinda late to all this and I'm not sure where Mr. Frazier is getting his data. Let's start with the A-20/Havoc/Boston/DB-7
ALL planes have their handling peculiarities and airframe limits the A-20 was no different in that respect. The "horrible/death trap" was flown by France, Great Britain, Australia, Netherlands, Soviet Union and the USAAF

*In a report to the British Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment (AAEE) at RAF Boscombe Down, test pilots summed it up as: "has no vices and is very easy to take off and land ... The aeroplane represents a definite advantage in the design of flying controls ... extremely pleasant to fly and manoeuvre.*

Gann, Harry. The Douglas A-20 (7A to Boston III). London: Profile Publications, 1971.

*Ex-pilots often consider it their favorite aircraft of the war due to the ability to toss it around like a fighter.*

Winchester, Jim, ed. "Douglas A-20 Boston/Havoc." Aircraft of World War II (The Aviation Factfile). Kent, UK: Grange Books plc, 2004. ISBN 1-84013-639-1.

*The Douglas bomber/night fighter was found to be extremely adaptable and found a role in every combat theater of the war, and excelled as a true "pilot's aeroplane".*

Taylor, John W.R. "Douglas DB-7, A-20 Havoc, and Boston (Bombers) and Douglas DB-7, Havoc, P-70 (Fighters)." Combat Aircraft of the World from 1909 to the present. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1969. ISBN 0-425-03633-2.

Now the poor old much maligned Sherman:
Early in the war, the Sherman tank had a nearly identical rate of failures when compared to its contemporaries. The Panzer IV had a nearly identical rate of catastrophic failures. Even Belton Cooper – whose book ‘Death Traps’ was highly critical of the M4 Sherman’s performance did note several times that German anti-tank crews had a very difficult time catching the tank on fire

In mid 1944, the US introduced wet stowage to the ammo compartment of the tank. By all accounts, the rate of failure decreased by an overwhelming 75%. This decrease dropped failures to even blow that of the Tiger tank.

3% of all tankers deployed by the US in WWII were killed. While the death rate for the US Infantry soldier was 18%.

An American tanker had an 80% survival chance if their tank was knocked out and they could stay inside. Nearly half of all US tanker deaths happened outside of their tanks.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## John Frazer (Aug 13, 2019)

John Frazer said:


> By some reports, USN gave up on the Corsair as a naval plane because it had atrocious vision and their pilots couldn't see the ship to land it on. The RN must have had a few older biplane pilots, because the pilot sits in the back.





GrauGeist said:


> Interesting...I never knew the USN "gave up" on the F4U.





fubar57 said:


> WHAT???????????????? I was suspicious at first but this guy is definitely a troll


You might want to read up on the history of that great plane to learn something.

Every historian or account of the plane (many sources) says that they started trials with it in '41, but went with the Hellcat and gave Corsairs to the Marines & the RN. Largely because of the huge nose preventing the pilots from seeing the LSO, other things, more minor. A couple squadrons of navy crews used it, only from land.
They didn't re-try it off USN CVs until April '44, off the Gambier Bay, after the RN showed how do do the curving landing approach. It started using USN CVs to refuel and rearm, but still was not based off a ship. They didn't operate it off carriers regularly until late '44 or early '45, at Okinawa (Marine pilots). Write a book about it and join the ranks of historians, if you know better facts and dates. Please illuminate us.

I'm somewhat surprised that on this site, no one appreciated or knew this. (please try to restrain any emotional response, this time.)

It should be obvious that an old biplane pilot faced a similar situation. Everywhere we see them represented, the pilots stick their heads out over the side to see ahead and below, or while taxiing. First time I saw the S.E.5a , it was obviously an issue but it didn't stop it. Lindbergh wrote about this and the same problem in spades, flying the "Spirit of St Louis". (No forward visibility what-so-ever)
Visibility was not an issue with the low aspect ratio planes. The later Arups solved it, as did Fauvel & Cheranovsky in their somewhat similar little all-wing. Hatfield's '80s plane had no problem moving the pilot forward, and the Boeing design for a flapjack also had no problem. The Hoffman designed Arups apparently might have, but they also put windows in the bottom for the high AoA approach.

BTW, what was the "FAA" who flew the Corsair?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Aug 13, 2019)

Fleet Air Arm


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 13, 2019)

You never mentioned the 6" strip added to the leading edge of the right wing to prevent a left wing stall, one of the fatal faults of the Corsair during carrier landings

EDIT: amenment made after it was pointed out that I suffered rightivitus

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 14, 2019)

John Frazer said:


> You might want to read up on the history of that great plane to learn something.





John Frazer said:


> BTW, what was the "FAA" who flew the Corsair?



And there ya' have it...


----------



## Airframes (Aug 14, 2019)

Free Aberdeen Airforce ..................... cough !

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 14, 2019)

*"USN gave up on the Corsair as a naval plane because it had atrocious vision and their pilots couldn't see the ship to land it on "*

CV-9, *1952*






USS Valley Forge *1950*

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 14, 2019)

John Frazer said:


> By some reports, USN gave up on the Corsair as a naval plane because it had atrocious vision and their pilots couldn't see the ship to land it on. The RAF must have had a few older biplane pilots, because the pilot sits in the back.



You are really digging yourself a deeper hole. The U.S. Navy used Stearmans as primary trainers - older biplane. From there they progressed to Harvards. The RN(LMAO)....FAA used de Havilland Tiger Moths and Fleet Finches. - older biplanes. From there they progressed to Harvards. Why would the U.S. Navy, pray tell, struggle with the Corsair. A quote from a pilot who trained in a Stearman in 1941. "Due to the low tail wheel the aircraft sits at a high angle, blocking my view ahead. I see only sky through the whirling propeller." U.S. Navy receives its first Corsair in July '42

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## mikewint (Aug 15, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> the 6" strip added to the leading edge of the right wing to prevent a right wing stall,


Not exactly true. The eventual design of the Corsair was a "Because of A we have B and because of B we have C and because of C....

The US Navy Bureau of Aeronautics had a long tradition of issuing proposals for aircraft which pushed the limits of available technology. Therefore when "BuAer" sent its proposal for a high performance, carrier based fighter to United Aircraft Corporation (parent company of Vought-Sikorsky) on February 1, 1938, it seemed the Navy might have pushed technology past its limits. Early on in the design process, James Shoemaker (Propulsion engineer) chose the Pratt-Whitney R-1830 Wasp air-cooled radial engine because of its long history of reliability. But, in 1940, the BuAer’s quest for greater speed resulted in a switch to the experimental XR-2800-4 version of the Pratt-Whitney Double Wasp, with a two-stage supercharger. The R-2800 engine was the most powerful engine in the world in 1940, exceeding 100 hp (74.6 kW) per cylinder for each of its 18 cylinders. It was that decision that set the stage for all the unusual design features of the Corsair. With this huge 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.

Shortening the prop was not an option 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. As a byproduct, the “bent” wing also improved the aerodynamics of the intersection where the wing attaches to the fuselage, boosting the top speed.

More problems developed when carrier trials were held aboard the USS Sangamon and other carriers in late 1941. The biggest problem was the long nose (The U.S. Navy's November 1940 production proposals specified heavier armament. The increased armament comprised three .50 caliber machine guns mounted in each wing panel. To make room for the guns, the wing fuel tanks had to be removed. Losing the wing tanks meant increasing the size of the fuselage fuel tank. The enlarged fuselage tank moved the cockpit another 3 feet further back.) It stuck out 14 feet (4.27 m) in front of the pilot. When the Corsair was sitting in take-off position, the nose pointed up at an angle sufficient to block forward vision to about 12º above the horizon. In carrier landings it was practically impossible to see the Landing Signals Officer, once the Corsair was lined up with the carrier deck on final approach. Adding to this problem were oil and hydraulic leaks from the engine compartment which seeped past the cowl flaps and smeared the windshield, further restricting visibility.

Once past that hurtle the aircraft had to actually land on the carrier. Landing on a carrier deck required the pilot to have the plane at stall speed just as the tail-hook snagged the deck wire, but this was made very difficult by the newly discovered stall characteristics of the F4U. *Just as stall speed was reached, the left wing tended to drop like a rock.* In a deck landing this could cause the landing gear to collapse resulting in injuries to the pilot and severe damage to the aircraft. Assuming luck was with the pilot and he landed intact, the Corsair normally "bottomed out" the shock absorbers as it slammed down on the deck. The resulting recoil caused the plane to bounce high in the air several times. The bounce at times caused the tailhook to fail to "trap" or even to release the trapped arrestor wire. If this happened on a straight deck carrier it could cause the aircraft to plow into the planes parked forward.

As a result of these problems the Navy declared the Corsair to be unsuitable for carrier duty. Nonetheless the Corsair was still a highly desirable combat aircraft just not fit, as of yet, for carriers. Thus the Navy gave it to the US Marines for land-based operations.

It was the British who finally worked out a method of landing the Corsair on their carriers in spite of the visibility problems caused by the long nose. Instead of the normal downwind-crosswind-final approach method, the British simply turned downwind, and then made a slow, continuous curve which aligned the Corsair with the deck only at the last second before the aircraft touched down and trapped. This method allowed the pilot to keep the Landing Signals Officer in view right up to the moment the plane was over the fan-tail where the LSO gave the sign to either "cut" or make another attempt.

To alleviate the problem of oil and hydraulic fluid smearing the windshield, the Brits simply wired shut the cowl flaps across the top of the engine compartment, diverting the oil and hydraulic fluid around the sides of the fuselage. The left wing stall problem was solved through the addition of a small, 6-inch stall strip to the leading edge of the outer starboard wing, just inboard of the gun ports. This strip *increased* the stall characteristics of the right wing so that it stalled at the same speed as the left wing.

The landing bounce was solved by the addition of a “bleed” valve that slowly released the hydraulic pressure as the aircraft landed. With the bounce eliminated the tailhook problem vanished. These modifications were soon incorporated into the production line. In 1944 the US Navy decided to again try landing the F4U on carriers, and this time succeeded. However the “Ensign Eliminator” remained a difficult aircraft to land on a carrier.

Marine pilot John Geuss flew Corsairs in combat in World War II and Korea
*“It was tough landing on the carrier,” said the retired Marine Col.: “You come in at about 90 knots, which is about 10 knots above stalling speed, if you turn into the groove with the nose cocked up the only thing you see is the two LSOs at the ass-end of the platform, plus about 200,000 square miles of ocean. So while you can see the LSOs you can’t see the deck. You can’t see the deck at all. Because of its nose, the Corsair made you blind in a way that no other airplane did — not even the F6F Hellcat or F8F Bearcat, because you can see right over the nose of both of them.”*

During WWII F4Us flew 64,051 sorties of which only 15% were from carriers.

The Corsair is credited with downing 2,140 enemy aircraft with just 189 losses, an 11:1 air combat ratio. Although the F6F Hellcat is credited with a 19:1 ratio, some believe Corsair pilots faced more formidable adversaries under more difficult conditions.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 15, 2019)

What part of your cut and paste says it isn't true Mike


----------



## mikewint (Aug 15, 2019)

O'Leary, Michael. _United States Naval Fighters of World War II in Action_. Poole, Dorset, UK: Blandford Press, 1980. ISBN 0-7137-0956-1
pp. 106-107


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 15, 2019)

What? Adding the strip didn't stop the stall?


----------



## mikewint (Aug 15, 2019)

It changed the stall characteristics of the right wing. Thus both wings would stall/drop at the same speed rather than just one dropping.


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 15, 2019)

But you quoted me and said....."Not exactly true" and now you are saying what I said


----------



## mikewint (Aug 15, 2019)

You said "prevent a right wing stall" 
From the Corsair's Operation Manual:
*Stall speeds Stalls are quite abrupt and are signalled by a sudden drop in the left wing. Gear down, flaps 20-30 77 kts Clean 85 kts *

The 6 inch "stall strip" caused the right wing to stall sooner. It did not prevent a stall it in effect caused a stall in the right wing to occur sooner. Thus the two wings stalled symmetrically at the same time and speed

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 15, 2019)

From "Detail & Scale", ".....This small spoiler was only six inches long but it was enough to cause the right wing to *stall at the same time as the left, *thus keeping the aircraft in level flight"


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 15, 2019)

Post #94 edited.


----------



## mikewint (Aug 16, 2019)

Geo, somehow things are getting lost/confused in translation. You are now saying in post #94 that the stall strip on the right wing PREVENTS THE LEFT WING FROM STALLING. Consider that statement for a moment....How could anything on the RIGHT wing affect the aerodynamics of the LEFT wing?

Let me try once again. The problem with the Corsair was that the LEFT and RIGHT wings entered into a stall at different speeds.
As the aircraft's speed dropped the LEFT wing stalled first and deprived of lift it dropped precipitously. The RIGHT wing was unaffected and maintained its lift
So at 77kph the LEFT wing stalls while the RIGHT wing continues to maintain lift until the speed drops to 75kph when it stalls and looses lift.
The 6 inch stall strip alters the aerodynamics of the RIGHT wing degrading them. With the strip installed the lift performance of the RIGHT wing is degraded to the point that it (RIGHT WING) stalls and looses lift at the higher velocity of 77kph JUST LIKE THE LEFT WING.
The aircraft's stall characteristics are now equal in both wings


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 16, 2019)

Seen here, is a rare color photo of a US Navy F4U taking off from a US Navy carrier during the Pacific war.

I say "rare" because it's been said the USN didn't operate Corsairs...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 16, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> I say "rare" because it's been said the USN didn't operate Corsairs...



Awww! Now you're just being facetious!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mikewint (Aug 16, 2019)

During WWII F4Us flew 64,051 sorties of which only 15% were from carriers.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 16, 2019)

mikewint said:


> During WWII F4Us flew 64,051 sorties of which only 15% were from carriers.


Which means the USN flew 9607 sorties with the F4U...


----------



## mikewint (Aug 16, 2019)

Give or take a few. WWII carrier pilots did not care much for the Corsair. Mostly because of the tricky landing characteristics. Not being able to see the deck your supposed to be landing on must have a high pucker-factor.
Carrier pilots tended to prefer the more docile F6F Hellcat. Corsair was unforgiving to fly, the Hellcat was easy. This was not a trivial consideration at a time when the Navy was graduating thousands of new young ensigns. The F6F Hellcat was responsible for 75% of all aerial victories by the U.S. Navy in the Pacific Theater. Navy and Marine Hellcats flew 66,530 combat sorties, with 62,386 flown from aircraft carriers. They destroyed 5,163 enemy aircraft, losing 270 Hellcats to aerial combat. A kill ratio of over 19 : 1. The Hellcat was also responsible for dropping 6,503 tons of bombs in ground attacks. 
The Navy’s carrier-borne fighter was the Hellcat, and that was it. In June 1944, Task Force 58, in the Philippine Sea, had 450 fighters, all Hellcats. At the October 1944 Battle of Leyte Gulf, Task Force 38 had nearly 550 fighters all Hellcats.


----------



## John Frazer (Dec 1, 2019)

I stand entirely by what I said about the navy not using the corsair, but then later the visibility issue didn't bother them because they worked around it.
Lots of unsubstianted troll-like behavior vented at me in ignorant ranting, even by an admin, apparently.
But IDC, it doesn't hurt. Keep pouring it on.

Post-war accounts of the corsair in use have what to do with the period '41-'45? When the USN did not consider it suitable for carrier use.


BTW, the F.A.A. Fleet Air Arm is a part of the Royal Navy, I believe. I did correct my earlier mis-statement about the R.N. (common abbreviation for The U.K. ,"Royal Navy") so I was correct there too, despite the troll-like ranting about that.


----------



## John Frazer (Dec 1, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Seen here, is a rare color photo of a US Navy F4U taking off from a US Navy carrier during the Pacific war.
> 
> I say "rare" because it's been said the USN didn't operate Corsairs...
> 
> View attachment 549040


 15% of sorties with the Corsair, as documented by another, and _none_ operating off a carrier regularly until January '45.
That's 3+ of the worst years of the war, some of the biggest ever carrier battles, and not a single ship-board Corsair to be seen. Maybe a few, stopping by, before their Marine pilots take them back to their lsnd base.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 1, 2019)

I suppose it's easier to say "troll-like" instead of saying "oops, it appears that I was mistaken".

But the fact remains, the USN did operate the F4U from carriers, even if it was not in large numbers - although 9,000+ sorties IS a substantial number...


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 1, 2019)

It is actually 2 years of the war, not 3+. 
with only 178 built in 1942 and 68 of the them in December the Corsairs contribution in 1942 was nil, either from a carrier or from land. 

Went into action Jan 1943 on land, Went into action ( although assigned earlier)from US carriers Jan 1945. Two years. 

BTW Corsairs did operate from the US carrier Enterprise from Jan 1944 in small numbers, Four F4U-2Ns were operated as night fighters. They score 3 claims at the end of June 1944. 





The Fellow on the right, *2nd Lt Gilbert Dixon Boyd, *was the father of of a good boyhood friend of mine. 
VMF-124 Deployed on the USS Essex Dec 28th 1944.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Dec 1, 2019)

VF-17 was second USN Corsair squadron, operated Corsairs from CV-17 during its sea trials, but went to shore when the carrier arrived in Hawaii in October 1943.
Flew a shuttle mission 11 November from shore base in Solomons to fly CAP over TF 38, landing and refueling aboard the carriers.


----------

