Doughboy
Staff Sergeant
The marines mostly used the Corsair, because the landing gear would snap off while landing on a carrier.No, but I think it was noted for weakness and had a reputation for killing pilots when it collapsed.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The marines mostly used the Corsair, because the landing gear would snap off while landing on a carrier.No, but I think it was noted for weakness and had a reputation for killing pilots when it collapsed.
The marines mostly used the Corsair, because the landing gear would snap off while landing on a carrier.
Okay...That makes sense.No, that's not it at all. The landing gear had too much bounce that wasn't solved until later on into the war, and they would bounce all over the deck when landed.
Hi Ivan...the join between the wing and fuselage was the smallest area that it could be because the joint was at a 90 degree angle
lol me neither but best I've heard so farI am not an aerodynamics person. I just read a fair amount, so I don't know if my opinions have a whole lot of validity
Hi Colin1,
The wing root meets the fuselage at 90 degrees to the surface of the fuselage (surface of your cylinder). Consider that in most low wing monoplanes, the wing meets the fuselage almost at a tangent to the surface of the fuselage (cylinder). (The lower wing surface typically IS tangent to fuselage.) Because it meets at nearly a tangent, the intersection between wing root and fuselage is very large.
I am not an aerodynamics person. I just read a fair amount, so I don't know my opinions have a whole lot of validity.
- Ivan.
Hi Ivan
so if I drew an imaginary line back through the bent section of the wing (looking at the a/c from head-on) and continued the line back into the cylindrical fuselage, it would - in 2D - pass through the centre of the circle created by the frontal aspect of the fuselage (the longeron datum line)?
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
As far as the wing to fuselage goes, it is like a mid mounted wing. Like the F4f Wildcat. But a mid mount would create extremely long landing gear if it extends from the wing rather than the fuselage like a Wildcat. So you rotate the wing down to the "bottom" of the fuselage while still keeping a 90 deg. connection, and then bend the wing up towards an area around the lower or mid point of the fuselage.
I am no aerodynamcist myself, but I can easily see that this makes for a far less area of wing attachment to the body of the airplane.
And once again, I am not sure this was on purpose, but incidental. I think Vought first did this to simply shorten and strenghten the landing gear.
If you look at a few threads back, I had a question about the aerodynamics of the Corsair. Drgondog and several others also contributed greatly to that question. The Corsair seems to be a study in questionable or unique aerodynamics. Starting at the wing and ending at the tail design. Truely a very unique fighter no doubt!
I read once, that anytime you see cranked wings, or twisted tails, you are seeing aerodynamic "fixes" for a less than perfect design. This was talking about the F4 Phantom jet fighter, but it may also apply in this instance.
And I am not slamming the F4U Corsair, I like them!
I'm curious to know what aerodynamic benifits were realized from the 90 degree wing/fuselage mounting on the Corsair? The F4F Wildcat (mid-wing, also 90 degree?) wasn't known as a speed demon, so I'm guessing speed increase wasn't it?
.