Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 890
- Feb 16, 2013
Here is one, with arrestor hook and all! 
Corsair and Hellcat in Europe
- Thread starter GregP
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
fubar57
General
fubar57
General
As mentioned in the link I posted
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
I wonder how all the required modifications that made the P-51 "carrier ready" affected it's overall flight performance. Is there any period documentation concerning this?
That exposed tail hook looks somewhat drag envoking.....
That exposed tail hook looks somewhat drag envoking.....
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,002
- Jun 25, 2013
Probably not a problem for experimental landing trials.
I wonder what other mods would be needed to make it a realistic carrier-based aircraft. I'm suspecting stronger landing gear, hard points for catapulting (possibly not necessary for use of the aircraft on larger carriers), and wing folding, possibly better flaps, improvements in low-speed stability (the USAAF would accept lower stability during approach than would the USN)
Last edited:
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
You would definitely want a catapult if you were near the front of a large strike force launching from an Essex class carrier too.
This would be a good link: Mustang! - DocumentsDarrenW said:
The baseline aircraft was the P-51D-5NA, and was modified in the following way
- Basic fuselage was strengthened to withstand repetitive stress of hard landings and catapult-launches. These changes included
- Reinforced bulkhead to mount the tail-hook
- Strengthening of the mid-lower fuselage to mount the catapult-hook
- Addition of improved shock-absorbers (possibly stronger landing-gear struts) and higher pressure tires
- Dorsal-root fillet added to improve directional stability: The earliest P-51D's lacked this feature, but it was added fairly soon on and backfitted
From a performance standpoint
- The aircraft was a good performer in terms of cruise and top-speed as it was streamlined, had a good radiator, good engine power across a wide-range of altitude owing to the twin-stage supercharger and carburetor elbow. While it was probably a little bit heavier than a stock P-51D because of the reinforcements to the airframe, it's not clear how much of a difference it made in terms of takeoff run, climb-rate, and top-speed.
- It's stall speed was said to be a bit on the high-side, and the margin between normal landing-speed and the maximum speed for engaging the net was said to be dangerously close. It required an unusual degree of exactitude in approaches.
- The combination of engine power, directional-stability, low-speed approaches made it possible for loss of control in the event of abrupt power application (rolls, torque-stalls),
- Landing attitude had to be very precisely controlled or you could risk breaking the aircraft in half
Last edited:
fubar57
General
LMAO!!!!!!
What's so funny?
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
From what I can tell it would be hard to beat the view perched way up high and forward in a F6F, although the test pilot of the navalized Mustang was of a somewhat different opinion. Seeing that I fly a Hellcat in a flight sim my opinion is obviously the more correct.
No brainer concerning the Corsair though.....
Last edited:
wuzak
Captain
Perhaps because you posted a link fubar had posted only a few posts above yours, and then proceeded to summarise what the link said.
- Thread starter
- #555
GregP
Major
The F6F has superb over the nose visibility. You can see the runway when in 3-point attitude.
The P-51 does NOT have good over the nose visibility, but is better than the Corsair due to being more narrow.
The P-51 does NOT have good over the nose visibility, but is better than the Corsair due to being more narrow.
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
Grumman strategically placed the engine mounts canted to one side (instead of being at conventional right angles to the longitudinal axis). This gives a narrower front, aiding visibility forward and down. Lt Cdr A.M. Jackson of BuAer's fighter design desk (quoted as saying "you can't hit 'em if you can't see 'em") suggested that the original F6F cowling also be trimmed down for better aerial gunnery. This gave the aircraft a more flat-sided cowling when compared to the F4U and P-47, and as a result better overall forward visibility.
In addition to this, the nose of the aircraft sloped downwards from the windscreen (in sharp contrast to the practically level engine cowling of the P-51), which further improved forward vision in all flight attitudes. The higher placement and more forward position of the Hellcat's cockpit also gave the pilot a much steeper angle of view than with the Mustang (roughly 15 degrees greater), allowing him better vision over the nose and leading edge of the wing. This feature obviously aided in carrier landings, and was a trademark of Grumman fighters since the very beginning (giving them all a rather stout appearance as a result).
Shortround6
Major General
You might want to check the geometry on that. The engine was not a flat disc of zero depth. It was a two row radial
angling it a few degrees one way or the other is going to move the front cylinders one way and the rear cylinders the other assuming you pivot the engine in the middle. You are trying to angle a short cylinder shape, Diameter over the rocker boxes and depth/height form the front of the front cylinders to rear of the rear cylinders.
1 1/2 degrees of angle to the side is going to nothing for vision down and past the the engine.
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
Hmm I don't know SR6, I'm quoting a December 1943 Popular Science article about the F6F where C. B. Colby talked with the Grumman design team about the new fighter, but things may have been exaggerated a bit during the interview I suppose. I do believe however that the original intent was to improve forward visibility. If I come across anything that explains it better I'll let you know....
Shortround6
Major General
Well, try it. take a couple of tuna fish cans (or short round cat food cans/roll of tape), stack them (or just use one) hold it around a foot from your eye and turn it slightly, do you see more or less past the can?
The downward tilt I can understand (although there may have been other reasons?) but the sideways cant for better visibility?
The downward tilt I can understand (although there may have been other reasons?) but the sideways cant for better visibility?
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
Sorry, couldn't resist!
And I get your point totally. You seem to have an aptitude for all things mechanical (far better than me) and the description I gave didn't wash well with you, which is totally understandable. I imagine that there is much more to this concept than meets the eye and as such the author may have generalized Grumman's design intentions a bit, which can cause misunderstandings when analyzed on a deeper level than first intended (Popular Science is consumed by the masses after all).
