Aircraft Quirks

[evangilder]

Yep, the same mechanism as the F3F. Taking off in a working machine isn't so bad. Could you imaggine being shot up and possibly injured, then having to hand crank the gear down?

 

[Gnomey]

Pretty sure it was the same in the early Hurricanes and Spitfires too. It would be hell having to pump down the landing gear if you/the plane/both were damaged.

 

[Nonskimmer]

Pretty sure it was the same in the early Hurricanes and Spitfires too. It would be hell having to pump down the landing gear if you/the plane/both were damaged.

The Spitfire Mk.I had the hand operated pump for the landing gear, but I think only the Hurricane prototypes did. As far as I know, the production models all featured an engine driven pump.

 

[Sgt. Pappy]

Also, cranking the gear obviously became a tiresome task and pilots would sometimes let go in the cranking process. This could cause them some wrist injury as well. Imagine that... before you even go into combat your hands are already broken.

 

[pbfoot]

To drop the gear on the wildcat it was not unknown for the pilot to unlock the gear and yank up on the stick saving the the task of hand cranking

 

[Sgt. Pappy]

Ha... I see. Even though the hand-cranking could be anoying, I've always had respect for those tough Grumman naval planes. With their toughness and simplicity. The Hellcat has always been my fave over the Corsair due to the fact that overall dogfighting performance went to the F6F when both planes were using a very similar engine with a very similar prop-blade setup.

It's too bad the P-38 didn't have the honor of being a Naval aircraft, what with its massive size and its unimaginable time to maintain. But the biggest problem were those Allisons that the Navy distrusted. I constantly wonder whenever I see a P-38 beside a Hellcat or Corsair if that Lightning would have been a better plane than it was with a pair of R-2800's instead. It would almost certainly cut down expenses on repairing the thing and durability would rise a lot. Cruise speed would probably drop though.

However, I'm almost sure that a P-38 with only 50% fuel flying off a moving 60-knot carrier could take off under its own power. If not there's always that trusty catapault.

 

[Jank]

A P-38 with R-2800's?

Bueller? ... Bueller? ... Anyone?

 

[Twitch]

Hehehe! That WOULD be a picture wouldn't it?

 

[Marshall_Stack]

"The Hellcat has always been my fave over the Corsair due to the fact that overall dogfighting performance went to the F6F when both planes were using a very similar engine with a very similar prop-blade setup."

The Corsair was much faster than the Hellcat any many pilots said it was as tough if not tougher than the Hellcat. The Hellcat may have a tighter turning radius but the Corsair was a good dogfighter as long as it was not low and slow (true for all US fighters).

The best thing about the Hellcat is that it was easier for carrier landings (a blessing for green pilots) and that the taxpayer could get five Hellcats for the price of two Corsairs.

 

[Marshall_Stack]

Another Quirk..

The early Spitfires had a disavantage with the ME109 in that if it went into a dive, the negative Gs would cause problems for the Spit's carburetor. The ME109 had fuel injection and didn't have any problems in a dive.

 

[Marshall_Stack]

The Japanese Zero - Big Ailerons became stiff at high speeds and it couldn't turn to the right very well because of the engine torque.

 

[evangilder]

They didn't become stiff, they became unmoveable altogether. Once you get over about 275, They might as well be rivetted in position.

 

[Sgt. Pappy]

"The Hellcat has always been my fave over the Corsair due to the fact that overall dogfighting performance went to the F6F when both planes were using a very similar engine with a very similar prop-blade setup."

The Corsair was much faster than the Hellcat any many pilots said it was as tough if not tougher than the Hellcat. The Hellcat may have a tighter turning radius but the Corsair was a good dogfighter as long as it was not low and slow (true for all US fighters).

The best thing about the Hellcat is that it was easier for carrier landings (a blessing for green pilots) and that the taxpayer could get five Hellcats for the price of two Corsairs.

Sure Corsair's faster and it rolls better... but have you noticed that the Hellcat climbs better (with the same hp and similar prop setup etc.) and accelerates a little better and dives better? Also, stall speed for the Hellcat is lower and structural integrity is actually better in the Grumman design, meaning tougher maneuvers and such even with less armor than the F4U. Therefore, it won't fall apart when heavily damaged. BUT anyway, this is about quirks... if I had a peso for every time i argued about tihs, I'd be one rich fella... but of course 33 pesos is 1 dollar ...MEH.

Anyway back to the subject. Not really a quirk, but Spits and Early F4U's had no floors and some pilots would get that feeling that they'd fall in and get lost forever! Never would you want to drop a pencil or map in there...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Anyway back to the subject. Not really a quirk, but Spits and Early F4U's had no floors and some pilots would get that feeling that they'd fall in and get lost forever! Never would you want to drop a pencil or map in there...

Go upside down and what ever you dropped will be on the canopy...

I've done that in an F-4.

 

[Sgt. Pappy]

HAHA wow! good idea, provided you didn't drop a knife or something lol. But you did this in a F-4 Phantom?

 

[Dac]

They didn't become stiff, they became unmoveable altogether. Once you get over about 275, They might as well be rivetted in position.

Not a nice design flaw when combined with no armor or self-sealing fuel tanks, no wonder so many were shot down latter in the war.

 

[evangilder]

More a limitation than a flaw. Those big ailerons give it great turning at lower speeds. It was tradeoffs. The design called for a lightweight, lon-range fighter. They got that at a cost of things that add weight like armor plating.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

HAHA wow! good idea, provided you didn't drop a knife or something lol. But you did this in a F-4 Phantom?

Yep - I worked for a company that had 4 of them leased from the USAF. I would get to "ride" in one after annual inspections and PDM maintenance. Once and a while someone was needed in the back seat to press a button - it was fun!

 

[Dac]

More a limitation than a flaw. Those big ailerons give it great turning at lower speeds. It was tradeoffs. The design called for a lightweight, lon-range fighter. They got that at a cost of things that add weight like armor plating.

I guess the Zero's manoeuverability was an advantage early in the war against Buffalos, Wildcats and P-40s.

Did they redesign the control surfaces later in the war for better handling at high speed?

 

[evangilder]

Not that I am aware of.