nimrod.michaeli
Airman
- 26
- Mar 28, 2009
why did the corsair had bended wings
F4U Corsair (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter nimrod.michaeli
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
michaelmaltby
Colonel
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.
MikeGazdik
Senior Airman
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.
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.
Doughboy
Staff Sergeant
It also boosted the speed.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
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?
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?
Marshall_Stack
Senior Airman
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?
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
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.
Any good info about that?
Doughboy
Staff Sergeant
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".
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".
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
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.
Catch22
Major
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.
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
Absence of wing-root fairing sounds plausible - 90 degrees to what though?
Catch22
Major
I'm not an aerodynamics guy, that is simply something I've read.
Catch22
Major
Nevermind this, posted before I was done for some reason...
Catch22
Major
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!
) 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!
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!
) 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! 
A4K
Brigadier General
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...
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Off topic, but does anyone know the length of Vought's Cutlass nose wheel leg?
No, but I think it was noted for weakness and had a reputation for killing pilots when it collapsed.
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
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
