Corsair as Dive Bomber?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The early Corsairs have had no racks what so ever. The 1st time the rack was installed, it was under the centreline. Later models got two racks under the inner wing portion, the centreline rack being removed. Post war the centreline rack was installed.
The prototype Corsair have had bomb bays in the wings for small anti-aircraft bombs.
 
tomo pauk said:
The 1st time the rack was installed, it was under the centreline.
Click to expand...

Was that for a bomb or just a drop tank?
I've seen a picture of a rather crude bodge job of a centreline bomb rack on a USMC aircraft, certainly with no kind of displacement gear, but just wondered if it was ever an official fitting. As I said, US aircraft are not really my thing

Cheers

Steve
 
There was no fancy dispalcement gear installed, and it indeed looked like an improvisation of the bomb rack on the F4U-1A (picture of a model).
The later F4U-1D introduced 2 racks, where the bombs were neatly attached.
 


Hi Tomo,

Thanks for the correction, but you are wrong about that. The very first 575 production F4U-1s and the first 1247 FG-1s carried a removable Mark 41-2 bomb rack under each wing, just outboard of the wing guns. The rack was used in testing and training, but I've never heard of its combat use.

Records of the XF4U-1 have been tough to track down, but the few documents I've found in the Archives suggest that the internal bomb racks were also intended for anti-aircraft suppression - against shipboard and ground AA guns - rather than the oft listed plan to attack other aircraft by bombing them in flight. This last point is speculation on my part - while the records suggest this, I've never found a definitive explanation of those internal bomb racks.

You might enjoy my two books on early Corsairs:

Amazon product ASIN 0985714972View: https://www.amazon.com/Aircraft-Pictorial-No-F4U-1-Corsair/dp/0985714972/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1479992344&sr=1-9&keywords=f4u+corsair


and

Amazon product ASIN 0985714999View: https://www.amazon.com/Aircraft-Pictorial-No-F4U-1-Corsair/dp/0985714999/ref=sr_1_11?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1479992344&sr=1-11&keywords=f4u+corsair


Cheers,


Dana
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Thank you for the tips.
Hopefully you could post a picture or two where early Corsairs have outboard wing racks installed, but no inboard rack(s)?
 
Thank you for pointing me on the right direction, Dana. I stand corrected
The F4U-1 detailed specification indeed shows two bombs outboard the undercarriage, listing them as 2 x 100 lbs. link
Data sheet for the F4U-1, payload includes a torpedo(!): link
 

The bomb definetely accelerates faster than the aircraft, so the pilot did NOT have much time to pull away, in real 90 degree dive..
 
Last edited:
Timppa said:
The bomb definetely accelerates faster than the aircraft, .
Click to expand...

Only the force of gravity could act to accelerate the bomb. Whether it will accelerate the bomb or whether the bomb will in fact decelerate once released depends on the forces opposing gravity, principally the drag of the bomb.
I have no idea how that works out for different scenarios, but knowing the terminal velocity at typical altitudes for the bomb(s) would be a good starting point. Of course it also depends on what the aircraft is doing, since it is the relative motion between the two which matters.
I know Douglas' concern was for 'flapped', presumably meaning 'braked', aircraft which, being designed as dive bombers, might not be accelerating in the dive at all, but be diving at a constant speed.
The automatic pull out system being discussed would start to move the aircraft away from the course of the bomb immediately after separation.
Cheers
Steve
 

OK. True vertical dive bomb scenario:
- Typical terminal velocities of the bombs I have have seen quoted is about 600mph.
- F4U limit speed with its gear extended is 250-260knots, or 300mph.
- Half the speed means quarter of the drag force (ignoring compressibility)
- That means bomb acceleration relative to the aircraft is initially 3/4 of "g" .
- The distance from the propeller to the bomb is about 2 metres.
- Bomb will hit the propeller in less than one second after release.

So, IMO, true vertical dive is not possible.
There was a reason for bomb skip arms of dedicated dive bombers, like SBD or Ju-87.
 
Timppa said:
OK. True vertical dive bomb scenario:
- Typical terminal velocities of the bombs I have have seen quoted is about 600mph.
- F4U limit speed with its gear extended is 250-260knots, or 300mph.
Click to expand...

F4U limit speed with its gear extended IN DIVE BRAKE MODE is 350 knots INDICATED. That's 403 mph INDICATED; probably 430 to 450 mph true, depending on atmospheric conditions and altitude.
Better recalculate.
 
The bomb ejector was used on the AD Skyraider according to the Pilot's Handbook for AD-2/AD-3 and AD-4. Section 4-19 of AD-2/AD-3 pilot's handbook states:
4-19 BOMB EJECTOR. The bomb ejector provided with the fuselage bomb rack is designed to displace the bomb away from the airplane sufficiently to clear the propeller in steep dives and operates by means of a bomb ejector cartridge.
 
yosimitesam said:
The bomb ejector provided with the fuselage bomb rack is designed to displace the bomb away from the airplane sufficiently to clear the propeller in steep dives and operates by means of a bomb ejector cartridge.
Click to expand...

By the time VietNam rolled around, and jets were bombing in the compressibity range, ejectors were required on all bomb racks to assure positive separation. In fact, the original A-5 Vigilante failed as an attack bomber because it couldn't eject its ordnance forcefully enough to reliably escape the slipstream.
 
And USN fighters, unspecified, were cleared to dive at 85 degrees, close to a true vertical, with no danger of the bomb hitting the propeller.
Same for the P47.
There are complicated aerodynamic forces at work.
 
Timppa said:
F4U, specified, limited the dive angle to 60 degrees, see post #8.
Click to expand...

By the British, not the USN. I do not know whether the USN applied the same limits to this type of aircraft when dive bombing or not. It might be worth checking though.
Cheers
Steve
 
stona said:
And USN fighters, unspecified, were cleared to dive at 85 degrees, close to a true vertical, with no danger of the bomb hitting the propeller.
Same for the P47.
There are complicated aerodynamic forces at work.
Click to expand...

The P-47 and P-51 were in better position than F4U or F6F when it is about making a dive bomb attack, since the bombs were attached to the wings. The danger in hitting prop was probably not present there, unlike the with USN heavy fighters.
 
I have seen other ordnance in this position too.



I've no idea what the configuration for the tests was, but there was obviously some concern that the propeller might be hit, both from the 8th AF and USN.

Cheers

Steve
 
The P-47 could (and did) carry ordnance on the centerline rack.

While they didn't "dive bomb" in the literal sense, they did deliver bombs onto enemy positions from a shallow dive. To what degree on a dive, I am not sure.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Corsair
Replies
1
Views
807
tomo pauk
A
The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
13K
EwenS
E
XB-24J prototype bomber
Replies
18
Views
1K
GrauGeist
R
SBD dive bombing procedures
2 3
Replies
52
Views
6K
Retattack
R
"Zerstörer" specification, but as an 1-engined fighter
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
4K
marathag
Menu
Log in
Register