A much different F4U Corsair

[gjs238]

1) Would the F4U been better off using a smaller diameter 4-blade prop and a straight wing?

2) Would the F4U fuel tank and cockpit locations have been better off in the original XF4U-1 configuration?
Would 4 50 cal MG's have been sufficient? Or British 20mm cannon.

 

[Capt. Vick]

Magic eight ball sssssssaaaaaaayyyyyyyysssss...crap...ask again later...

 

[meatloaf109]

Tee! Friggin' Hee!!!
Guffah!!!

 

[GregP]

No

 

[OldSkeptic]

Do that then it isn't ... a Corsair it is a different plane entirely, sort of more like a Bearcat perhaps?

 

[pattle]

Why did the Corsair have gull wings? didn't this have something to do with prop length?

 

[tomo pauk]

Hawker was experimenting with this:
http://www.aviation-history.com/hawker/hg641.jpg

 

[stona]

Why did the Corsair have gull wings? didn't this have something to do with prop length?

Big propeller (13'4") and U/C legs not too long and flimsy (for carrier operation) equals a gull wing compromise.

The image posted (edit: linked to above) is of the radial engine version of the Tornado (HG641) fitted with a Centaurus IV. It was taken at Langley in November 1942. The geometry of the wing is similar to the Typhoon and Tempest so you could argue that Hawkers did more than experiment with it. Photographs are deceptive due to the shape of the wing. The anhedral is only 1 degree on the section from the fuselage to the outer wing.

Cheers

Steve

 

[tomo pauk]

1) Would the F4U been better off using a smaller diameter 4-blade prop and a straight wing?

Not mucha better fighter, but maybe a more could be churned out in the equal time? The 'waving' of the central wing section does seem like it needed more time effort to build vs. a straight one, as found in Hellcat? We can note that Grumman was producing more F6Fs than Vought, Godyear and Brewster (okay, I know...) F4Us.
The wing of the Hellcat weighted some 5% less, while being of ~6% more area - so our new Corsair might save 200 lbs (10 % of the wing weight) with straight wing?

2) Would the F4U fuel tank and cockpit locations have been better off in the original XF4U-1 configuration?

The front cockpit would mean better over-nose view - the plane is easier to land on the carrier, hence it's earlier in the action both from USN and RN carriers?

Would 4 50 cal MG's have been sufficient? Or British 20mm cannon.

For most (all?) of the Axis hardware, 4 HMGs were sufficient. Justifying a 2000 HP fighter with 4 HMGs might've been quite a task
2 cannons + 2 HMGs maybe?

 

[vinnye]

It may have been possible to use a 5 bladed propellor - a number of aircraft went down this route when their engine hp increased.
Maybe it would have looked like a Sea Fury?

 

[stona]

For most (all?) of the Axis hardware, 4 HMGs were sufficient.

Not with you there at all
Steve

 

[tomo pauk]

It may have been possible to use a 5 bladed propellor - a number of aircraft went down this route when their engine hp increased.
Maybe it would have looked like a Sea Fury?

Sea Fury was using 12' 9" prop, vs. 13'4" of the F4U, vs. 12'2" of the early P-47 props ('toothpick'), and vs. 13' prop of the later P-47Ds (wide chord, or 'paddle blade'). Not sure whether the F4U prop might be also called 'paddle blade'?
Not sure about Tempest II prop dimensions.

 

[vinnye]

Sea Fury was using 12' 9" prop, vs. 13'4" of the F4U, vs. 12'2" of the early P-47 props ('toothpick'), and vs. 13' prop of the later P-47Ds (wide chord, or 'paddle blade'). Not sure whether the F4U prop might be also called 'paddle blade'?
Not sure about Tempest II prop dimensions.

View attachment 244201

So the Sea Fury had a 5 bladed prop of 12' 9" and the F4U had a 3 bladed prop of 13' 4".
That is only a difference of 7" - far less than I would have anticipated!

 

[syscom3]

I think that the angle that the wings attached to the fuselage due to the "gull" design decreased drag considerably.

I might be wrong, so correct me.

 

[swampyankee]

I think that the angle that the wings attached to the fuselage due to the "gull" design decreased drag considerably.

I might be wrong, so correct me.

It made fairing the wings easier. As to whether it significantly reduced drag vs a properly faired ungulled wing, the answer is maybe, but I think that that was much more of an after-the-fact justification than a design consideration. The gull wing was driven by a desire to reduce landing gear length while maximizing propeller diameter.

 

[stona]

Not sure about Tempest II prop dimensions.

Can't find the specification but it was four bladed and appears very similar to the De Havilland Hydromatic propeller fitted to other versions of the Tempest.

The Hawker F.2/43 Fury prototype also had a four blade propeller.

Edit: It may be that the Tempest II had a slightly smaller (12'9") Rotol propeller.....not sure.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Aozora]

Can't find the specification but it was four bladed and appears very similar to the De Havilland Hydromatic propeller fitted to other versions of the Tempest.

The Hawker F.2/43 Fury prototype also had a four blade propeller.

Edit: It may be that the Tempest II had a slightly smaller (12'9") Rotol propeller.....not sure.

Cheers

Steve

According to 4+ Publications (unfortunately now out of print) Hawker Tempest - Publications - 4+ publications the Tempest II propeller was a Rotol and was indeed 12' 9" (3.886 m): Tempest V and VI 14' (4.267 m) de Havilland or Rotol.

 

[stona]

According to 4+ Publications (unfortunately now out of print) Hawker Tempest - Publications - 4+ publications the Tempest II propeller was a Rotol and was indeed 12' 9" (3.886 m): Tempest V and VI 14' (4.267 m) de Havilland or Rotol.

Thanks, that makes sense. I knew the Tempest V (and tropicalized VI) had the 14' propeller but forgot to put it in my post which may have been confusing as I didn't specify what the 12'9" Rotol on the Tempest II was smaller than
Cheers
Steve

 

[Shortround6]

4 and 5 blade propellers were not sitting on the shelf ready to be produced and used as needed in 1940-41-42.

You can scale up a 3 blade hub drawings to a larger size fairly easily (and perhaps use some tooling) but a 4 blade hub is going to require more work ( and I believe even the 4 blade prop on the B-26 was about 12 ft in diameter).

Some of the these early props were dealing with 2000hp max. Some of the end of war or post war props were dealing with 2600-2800hp.

 

[tomo pauk]

The B-26 was outfitted with a 4 blade prop, so that item was actually available when 1941 begun. The 1st B-26s were produced in Feb 1941, the 1st unit received it in the same month.
The later B-26s used the 13 ft 6 in diameter prop, I was not able to find the dimensions for the prop installed in early B-26s.