F4U Corsair

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by nimrod.michaeli, Apr 28, 2009.

  1. nimrod.michaeli

    nimrod.michaeli New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    why did the corsair had bended wings
     
  2. michaelmaltby

    michaelmaltby Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Messages:
    3,889
    Likes Received:
    589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Toronto
    It had gull wings for clearance to raise the propeller off the landing surface. The P-47 had telescoping struts to achieve the same end.
     
  3. MikeGazdik

    MikeGazdik Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    Messages:
    531
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Ohio
    Exactly. They wanted the gear to be shorter and thus stronger for the harsh carrier landings.

    I have also read that a 90 deg attachment of the wing to the fuselage was an aerodynamic advantage, and because the wing "bent" up to join the fuselage this 90 deg. theory was realized. I'm not sure if that was intended by Vought, more than an accidental and fortunate result.
     
  4. Doughboy

    Doughboy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    N/A
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    It also boosted the speed.
     
  5. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    The bent wing contributed to the F4Us hefty price tag. A not so fortunate result. But if you're willing to pay the price then the F4U was a very capable aircraft.

    Suppose the U.S. Army Air Corps had adopted a F4U variant to replace the P-39 and P-40 for medium and low altitude missions. Would they produce it with a different wing? How much money would this save?
     
  6. Marshall_Stack

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Engineer
    Location:
    Missouri
    The USN could purchase 5 Hellcats for the same price as 3 Corsairs.

    Didn't the Corsair also have a bigger prop than the P-47?
     
  7. Colin1

    Colin1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Engineer and overgrown schoolboy
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    I believe it did
    but not sensationally bigger
    The later P-47 hydromatic screw had a diameter of 13' 2"; I believe the F4U was either 13' 4" or 13' 6", I'll have a look when I get home. Jug drivers had to be careful they had the ground clearance before bringing the tail up and similar care on landing, owing to something like a measly 6" ground clearance for the screw.
    Again, I don't know what the F4U's was but if it was similar it must have been fun trying to bring that down on a carrier without bending anything.
    I agree with the earlier comment, I think the bent-wing config was more about strengthening the undercart than getting the prop up in the air although it would certainly have helped.
     
  8. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,990
    Likes Received:
    435
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Any good info about that?
     
  9. Doughboy

    Doughboy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    N/A
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Here is where I found it. Vought F4U Corsair - USA

    And here is the paragraph."Since the landing gear had to be very strong to withstand the pounding of a carrier deck landing, a short, stout leg was required. Also, there wouldn’t be enough room in the wing to properly stow a longer gear. And, if the prop were shortened, much of the horsepower of the Double Wasp would be wasted. 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. And, as a byproduct, the wing also improved the aerodynamics of the intersection where the wing attaches to the fuselage, boosting the top speed".
     
  10. Colin1

    Colin1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Engineer and overgrown schoolboy
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    I don't see how a bent-wing config decreases the frontal area drag coefficient and those leading edge-integrated intakes weren't all gain, I believe some or even most of them were quite 'dirty' but I'm sure Bill (drgondog) can clear that one up.
     
  11. Catch22

    Catch22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    9,562
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Graphic Designer
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Home Page:
    It wasn't the frontal area that helped drag, it was the fact the wing came out of the fuselage at a 90 degree angle. It got rid of the need for a wing root cover, if that's the right terminology.
     
  12. Colin1

    Colin1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Engineer and overgrown schoolboy
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Absence of wing-root fairing sounds plausible - 90 degrees to what though?
     
  13. Waynos

    Waynos Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,309
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    To the fuselage side I would imagine, on a circular section such as the F4U anything fixed perpendular that is attatched below half way will point downwards at an increasing angle the further down you go
     
  14. Catch22

    Catch22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    9,562
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Graphic Designer
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Home Page:
    I'm not an aerodynamics guy, that is simply something I've read.
     
  15. Catch22

    Catch22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    9,562
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Graphic Designer
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Home Page:
    Nevermind this, posted before I was done for some reason...
     
  16. Catch22

    Catch22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    9,562
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Graphic Designer
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Home Page:
    Now that I'm on my computer and not my iPod, I can actually write a decent response.

    When I read it, it struck me as odd as well. The thing is, I've read it in a couple different places, such as one of the Kagero F4U books and I'm fairly certain Corsair in Action. The lack of wing-root fairing (thanks for the right terminology! :lol:) certainly makes sense, but I don't understand the angle part. Looking at models of it that I have around the house, the angle IS unique. It may not have been 90 degrees and I may have mis-remembered, but try comparing it to the Hellcat. It's really hard to explain, but the Corsair's nose area is almost, if not perfectly, round, so wherever the wing comes out of it's at the top arc of the curve. If you look at the Hellcat, which is oval, and where the wing comes straight out of the plane, the bottom of the wing is longer than the top, whereas the Corsair's are equal, if that makes any sense. Basically if you took the Corsair's wing off at the root where it comes out, and placed a ruler along the edge of the top and the edge of the bottom so it was going up and down, it would be straight up on its end. If you did the same for the Hellcat, however, it would be at a diagonal, slanted out towards the wingtip. I hope that makes sense. Now, don't ask me what that has to do with aerodynamics, I'll leave that to you guys to figure out! :lol:
     
  17. Graeme

    Graeme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    2,718
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Off topic, but does anyone know the length of Vought's Cutlass nose wheel leg?

    [​IMG]
     
  18. A4K

    A4K Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    12,162
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    The back of beyond
    Interesting info guys! I lamely thought it was to enable it's use as a dive bomber aswell (look at the Stuka), but there you go...
     
  19. davparlr

    davparlr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,934
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    retired avionics engineer
    Location:
    Southern California
    No, but I think it was noted for weakness and had a reputation for killing pilots when it collapsed.
     
  20. Colin1

    Colin1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Engineer and overgrown schoolboy
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    If that's a standard workbench to the right with the toolbox on top and that's a normal engine crane to the left, that leg's got to be touching 7ft
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. Vonrichthofen
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,806
  2. FlexiBull
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,153
  3. flyboy22682
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,851
  4. sunny91
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    2,039
  5. sunny91
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,760

Share This Page