Foo Fighters

[FLYBOYJ]

Unsubstantiated comments and troll-like responses will not be tolerated.

 

[GrauGeist]

Interesting...I never knew the USN "gave up" on the F4U.

Did anyone bother to tell the Japanese?

 

[Shortround6]

Let's see, according the cube root law that plane would have needed 430hp to go 220mph.

Real 1931-32 airplane that used 550hp to go 220mph.

It carried 5-6 passengers in addition to the pilot. View from the cockpit may not have been Ideal but sure beat the ARUP aircraft. Access to aircraft is though doors in the side (and step stool) not climbing though a hatch in the Belly.

For something a bit closer in size the Barling NB-3

Certified in 1929, 65hp engine, performance in "US civil Aircraft is at odds with Wiki" 100mph top speed, landing speed 37mph. with 18 gal of fuel and 170 pilot it was rated at 340lbs of payload, two 170 passengers side by side in the front cockpit.

Certified in 1928

110hp engine, 125MPH top speed, Pilot, 40-42 gallons of fuel, 3 passengers (ot 550lb payload not counting pilot and fuel) stalling speed 42-45mph.

These planes were exceptions. But the idea that ARUPs offered something so far out of the ordinary that only some sort of conspiracy or large scale stupidity kept them from taking over a large share of the market may need a rethink.

 

[Graeme]

97mph on 37 HP for 900lbs, isn't that slow. NACA was impressed with it.

Performance dropped off rapidly with a 30(?) HP Szekeley engine to the point where pilots couldn't get it off the ground.
What was Hatfield's trick to get it into the air?

 

[Wurger]

 

[BiffF15]

Apparently by the standards of the USAAF in '44, it came with severe cautions.
Again, whatever some pilots of other services said about it, this is what the Army told its pilots.

John Frazer,

You are talking about the same Army that had P38 pilots operating their Allison's NOT in accordance with the manufacturers guidelines? Or the same Army that ignored Chennault reports regards the combat lessons learned / earned against the Japanese?

What I've read regarding the A-20 has been very positive. Be careful using one data point as it could represent only a single / small groups experience and not the vast majority.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Shortround6]

To get back to the changing markets (and the years that it took to change them) see this article
https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1941/1941 - 0898.PDF

Mr. Fowler claims to have had the idea for his flap in 1916. It is not tested on an aircraft until 1927 (at his own expense) but as he relates in the Article, since most aircraft of the time were biplanes with low wing loading it didn't offer much improvement (my interpretation) however with the increase in use or interest in monoplanes the "market" for such a device increased and finally Lockheed used it on the Model 14 nearly 20 years after it was first conceived. It is still used on many aircraft today including a host of small STOL machines.

The increased use of flaps (of many designs) during the 30s may have been what regulated the ARUP planes and the other large wing area/low aspect ratio planes to the side lines.
A designer could get higher speed by using a small wing and high wing loading and yet keep landing speeds within reason by using flaps.

Lockheed found that fitting plain split flaps to the Orion pictured above allowed for an increase in gross weight of 400lbs and also cut the landing speed by 8-9mph.

This may have been the first non experimental plane fitted with Fowler type flaps.

Fieseler Fi 97 of 1934. 5 built.
See Fieseler Fi 97 - Wikipedia Also used Handley Page automatic slats over 1/2 the span and had a minimum control speed of 38-39mph.

With such add on high lift devices the need for the large wing area/low aspect ratio planes in order to fly slow or in and out of small fields was much diminished.

The Market had changed while the ARUPs were being developed.

 

[michael rauls]

John Fazer,

I have to respectfully disagree with you on a few items.

First, while the stated plan is to retire the B-2s by mid 2030s, I wouldn't hold my breath. Military history shows that programs are routinely cut, modified, and or stopped at the whims of the yearly budget or continuing resolution.

Second, fly by wire (FBW), is here to stay. As said by SR6, the F-16 does not fly without it, even though it has a conventional tail. To be clear, the plane is not controllable with out a functioning FBW system. We lost one on an ocean crossing when a mid air resulted in it losing the radome. The AOA sensors are located there. No sensors, no controllable flight. The North Pacific Ocean is cold in the winter time. I would guess the F22 is the same in that it's unfyable without FBW, and the F35, and probably every new fighter design from now on.

Third, to answer your comments about highly trained, test pilots with no other option but to eject should there be battle damage or problems. Yes, highly trained is good. Uncle Sam gets some big dollar items from your tax dollars and wants to keep them for a long time, and good training is a sound investment. Second, we are taught when a situation warrants jumping out of an aircraft, or as we say, giving it back to the tax payer. However not all situations are covered and that is where airmanship and experience come in. Far more guys have died trying to save an aircraft than have punched out when they should not have.

As for the death traps, I haven't seen one yet.

As for the highly paid officers comment. I look at it from two ways. Firstly the DoD determines what pay is and I think in the end it's based on what's affordable inside the confines of the budget. Secondly, regardless of officer or enlisted, attacking an heavily defended target by air or ground is not done for pay. The picture that comes to mind, is from the back of a landing craft off shore from Normandy, with a bunch a 20 year olds who are about to be landed. Or the guys who routinely do patrols in the Middle East right now. Trust me when I say they don't do it for the money, and the pay isn't enough.

Cheers,
Biff

Just to echo what you said about pilots staying with planes and trying to save them. I can't count the number of times I've read about instances of pilots risking and sometimes giving there lives to try and save planes when in trouble when they could have just bailed out. From WW2 to present.
Got to admire that kind of bravery and dedication.

 

[michael rauls]

A-20 is an excellent example. Yes the Red Army air force sings its praises, as do other services, whose generals and propaganda ministers are highly trained and paid to do as ordered.



USAAF 1944 training video: it's not at all an aerobatic airplane. Stalls at over 200 in a steep bank. Stalls right ahead and recovers nicely with power off, but don't _DO_NOT_ try a power-on stall because it spins viciously.
If you find yourself in a spin below 5000', bail out, but first make sure you stop and feather both engines or you might as well ride it down.
Easy meat for any fighter; Just look at it, and it's as good as dead. It's anybody's guess how many crews it killed with such awful handling.
There have been others accepted into services, and maybe tried out until they're too terrible and quietly phased out. History is full of such things.

Early Japanese planes were also. Some with barely better flying characteristics, and flammable as anything a Chinese theater pilot could hope for.
The Russian Il-2 was pressed into manufacture exactly as the first models to take to the air because Stalin liked them and he'd execute any engineer who said it might need development time. Who knows if it was good or not, except by listening to the Red Army propaganda, all of whom would be executed if they said anything different.
The Sherman is hailed as winning the war, but the crews know it had one of the highest kill and casualty rates of any part of the service. Known as the Ronson, outclassed by almost anything in the European theater. The Escort and light carriers were tinderboxes, just waiting for any fire or hit near a magazine. Most Japanese ships too. Liberty ships broke up handily when hit.
Crews knew that about any of these things, no matter the propaganda of service or manufacturers or politicians in whose districts they're made.

My impression from what ive read is that both the A20 and at least early war Japanese planes like the A6m and Ki43 had outstanding handling characteristics.
I'm curious what you've read that makes you believe they did not.

 

[denoferth]

A UFO is just that, an Unidentified Flying Object. For me the least rational of all possible explanations is that they have come from another planet/galaxy/time (delete as you like).
Cheers
Steve

In 1963 my then-fiancé and I watched through the car windshield a softly glowing thick disk-shaped object the size of a small four-room house move in complete silence over our front from horizon to horizon approximately 100 - 150 feet high doing no more than 20-25 mph. It passed so close I had to lean over the dash to see it pass over as we parked on a steep hillside above Sunset Beach, near Claysville, Pennsylvania. Once you see an actual machine, not just a strange light in the sky, dewdrop on a spiderweb or insect back-lit by the sun up close and personal the argument whether they exist or not from those without that experience gets pretty old. Since then I've seen enough not to get too overly excited about strange unidentifiable lights in the sky. But having said that there seems to be two kinds of people responding to these threads; those who've actually seen something unexplainable and those blabbering away with religiously held "opinions" about something they know nothing about. My curse on those folks is to hope they too see an up-close "machine" for long enough to fry their brain THEN try to rationalize it away with dumb comments. You see after you DO actually see something real you'll spend lots of time attempting to figure out just what the hell it could have been. Unfortunately, even more, time will be spent listening to inane comments and being called names by pompous fools, terrified cupcakes and know-it-all blowhards which is probably why many never tell a soul they saw anything. Anybody who knows the public history of our governments UFO studies realizes it started with "they exist", went into "total denial, only nuts see them mode" to "maybe we can explain some away" to "everythings classified". Long story short; machines that outperform everything we have, utilizing physics we can't comprehend invade our airspace with impunity and we can't do anything about it so those tasked with guarding that airspace either deny, ridicule or ignore their existence. Oh, and it's been going on as long as homosap has been around.

 

[mikewint]

Kinda late to all this and I'm not sure where Mr. Frazier is getting his data. Let's start with the A-20/Havoc/Boston/DB-7
ALL planes have their handling peculiarities and airframe limits the A-20 was no different in that respect. The "horrible/death trap" was flown by France, Great Britain, Australia, Netherlands, Soviet Union and the USAAF

In a report to the British Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment (AAEE) at RAF Boscombe Down, test pilots summed it up as: "has no vices and is very easy to take off and land ... The aeroplane represents a definite advantage in the design of flying controls ... extremely pleasant to fly and manoeuvre.

Gann, Harry. The Douglas A-20 (7A to Boston III). London: Profile Publications, 1971.

Ex-pilots often consider it their favorite aircraft of the war due to the ability to toss it around like a fighter.

Winchester, Jim, ed. "Douglas A-20 Boston/Havoc." Aircraft of World War II (The Aviation Factfile). Kent, UK: Grange Books plc, 2004. ISBN 1-84013-639-1.

The Douglas bomber/night fighter was found to be extremely adaptable and found a role in every combat theater of the war, and excelled as a true "pilot's aeroplane".

Taylor, John W.R. "Douglas DB-7, A-20 Havoc, and Boston (Bombers) and Douglas DB-7, Havoc, P-70 (Fighters)." Combat Aircraft of the World from 1909 to the present. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1969. ISBN 0-425-03633-2.

Now the poor old much maligned Sherman:
Early in the war, the Sherman tank had a nearly identical rate of failures when compared to its contemporaries. The Panzer IV had a nearly identical rate of catastrophic failures. Even Belton Cooper – whose book 'Death Traps' was highly critical of the M4 Sherman's performance did note several times that German anti-tank crews had a very difficult time catching the tank on fire

In mid 1944, the US introduced wet stowage to the ammo compartment of the tank. By all accounts, the rate of failure decreased by an overwhelming 75%. This decrease dropped failures to even blow that of the Tiger tank.

3% of all tankers deployed by the US in WWII were killed. While the death rate for the US Infantry soldier was 18%.

An American tanker had an 80% survival chance if their tank was knocked out and they could stay inside. Nearly half of all US tanker deaths happened outside of their tanks.

 

[John Frazer]

By some reports, USN gave up on the Corsair as a naval plane because it had atrocious vision and their pilots couldn't see the ship to land it on. The RN must have had a few older biplane pilots, because the pilot sits in the back.

Interesting...I never knew the USN "gave up" on the F4U.

WHAT???????????????? I was suspicious at first but this guy is definitely a troll

You might want to read up on the history of that great plane to learn something.

Every historian or account of the plane (many sources) says that they started trials with it in '41, but went with the Hellcat and gave Corsairs to the Marines & the RN. Largely because of the huge nose preventing the pilots from seeing the LSO, other things, more minor. A couple squadrons of navy crews used it, only from land.
They didn't re-try it off USN CVs until April '44, off the Gambier Bay, after the RN showed how do do the curving landing approach. It started using USN CVs to refuel and rearm, but still was not based off a ship. They didn't operate it off carriers regularly until late '44 or early '45, at Okinawa (Marine pilots). Write a book about it and join the ranks of historians, if you know better facts and dates. Please illuminate us.

I'm somewhat surprised that on this site, no one appreciated or knew this. (please try to restrain any emotional response, this time.)

It should be obvious that an old biplane pilot faced a similar situation. Everywhere we see them represented, the pilots stick their heads out over the side to see ahead and below, or while taxiing. First time I saw the S.E.5a , it was obviously an issue but it didn't stop it. Lindbergh wrote about this and the same problem in spades, flying the "Spirit of St Louis". (No forward visibility what-so-ever)
Visibility was not an issue with the low aspect ratio planes. The later Arups solved it, as did Fauvel & Cheranovsky in their somewhat similar little all-wing. Hatfield's '80s plane had no problem moving the pilot forward, and the Boeing design for a flapjack also had no problem. The Hoffman designed Arups apparently might have, but they also put windows in the bottom for the high AoA approach.

BTW, what was the "FAA" who flew the Corsair?

 

[Greyman]

Fleet Air Arm

 

[fubar57]

You never mentioned the 6" strip added to the leading edge of the right wing to prevent a left wing stall, one of the fatal faults of the Corsair during carrier landings

EDIT: amenment made after it was pointed out that I suffered rightivitus

 

[GrauGeist]

You might want to read up on the history of that great plane to learn something.

BTW, what was the "FAA" who flew the Corsair?

And there ya' have it...

 

[Airframes]

Free Aberdeen Airforce ..................... cough !

 

[FLYBOYJ]

"USN gave up on the Corsair as a naval plane because it had atrocious vision and their pilots couldn't see the ship to land it on "

CV-9, 1952

USS Valley Forge 1950

 

[fubar57]

By some reports, USN gave up on the Corsair as a naval plane because it had atrocious vision and their pilots couldn't see the ship to land it on. The RAF must have had a few older biplane pilots, because the pilot sits in the back.

You are really digging yourself a deeper hole. The U.S. Navy used Stearmans as primary trainers - older biplane. From there they progressed to Harvards. The RN(LMAO)....FAA used de Havilland Tiger Moths and Fleet Finches. - older biplanes. From there they progressed to Harvards. Why would the U.S. Navy, pray tell, struggle with the Corsair. A quote from a pilot who trained in a Stearman in 1941. "Due to the low tail wheel the aircraft sits at a high angle, blocking my view ahead. I see only sky through the whirling propeller." U.S. Navy receives its first Corsair in July '42

 

[mikewint]

the 6" strip added to the leading edge of the right wing to prevent a right wing stall,

Not exactly true. The eventual design of the Corsair was a "Because of A we have B and because of B we have C and because of C....

The US Navy Bureau of Aeronautics had a long tradition of issuing proposals for aircraft which pushed the limits of available technology. Therefore when "BuAer" sent its proposal for a high performance, carrier based fighter to United Aircraft Corporation (parent company of Vought-Sikorsky) on February 1, 1938, it seemed the Navy might have pushed technology past its limits. Early on in the design process, James Shoemaker (Propulsion engineer) chose the Pratt-Whitney R-1830 Wasp air-cooled radial engine because of its long history of reliability. But, in 1940, the BuAer's quest for greater speed resulted in a switch to the experimental XR-2800-4 version of the Pratt-Whitney Double Wasp, with a two-stage supercharger. The R-2800 engine was the most powerful engine in the world in 1940, exceeding 100 hp (74.6 kW) per cylinder for each of its 18 cylinders. It was that decision that set the stage for all the unusual design features of the Corsair. With this huge 2,804 cubic inch (46 liter) Double Wasp air-cooled radial engine developing 1,850 hp (1,380.6 kW), the only way to convert that kind of horsepower efficiently into thrust was with a huge Hamilton Standard Hydromatic, 3 blade prop which measured 13 feet 4 inches (4.06 meters) in diameter. And that created a problem of deck clearance for the prop. It seemed either the main landing gear had to be lengthened, or the prop had to be shortened.

Shortening the prop was not an option 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. As a byproduct, the "bent" wing also improved the aerodynamics of the intersection where the wing attaches to the fuselage, boosting the top speed.

More problems developed when carrier trials were held aboard the USS Sangamon and other carriers in late 1941. The biggest problem was the long nose (The U.S. Navy's November 1940 production proposals specified heavier armament. The increased armament comprised three .50 caliber machine guns mounted in each wing panel. To make room for the guns, the wing fuel tanks had to be removed. Losing the wing tanks meant increasing the size of the fuselage fuel tank. The enlarged fuselage tank moved the cockpit another 3 feet further back.) It stuck out 14 feet (4.27 m) in front of the pilot. When the Corsair was sitting in take-off position, the nose pointed up at an angle sufficient to block forward vision to about 12º above the horizon. In carrier landings it was practically impossible to see the Landing Signals Officer, once the Corsair was lined up with the carrier deck on final approach. Adding to this problem were oil and hydraulic leaks from the engine compartment which seeped past the cowl flaps and smeared the windshield, further restricting visibility.

Once past that hurtle the aircraft had to actually land on the carrier. Landing on a carrier deck required the pilot to have the plane at stall speed just as the tail-hook snagged the deck wire, but this was made very difficult by the newly discovered stall characteristics of the F4U. Just as stall speed was reached, the left wing tended to drop like a rock. In a deck landing this could cause the landing gear to collapse resulting in injuries to the pilot and severe damage to the aircraft. Assuming luck was with the pilot and he landed intact, the Corsair normally "bottomed out" the shock absorbers as it slammed down on the deck. The resulting recoil caused the plane to bounce high in the air several times. The bounce at times caused the tailhook to fail to "trap" or even to release the trapped arrestor wire. If this happened on a straight deck carrier it could cause the aircraft to plow into the planes parked forward.

As a result of these problems the Navy declared the Corsair to be unsuitable for carrier duty. Nonetheless the Corsair was still a highly desirable combat aircraft just not fit, as of yet, for carriers. Thus the Navy gave it to the US Marines for land-based operations.

It was the British who finally worked out a method of landing the Corsair on their carriers in spite of the visibility problems caused by the long nose. Instead of the normal downwind-crosswind-final approach method, the British simply turned downwind, and then made a slow, continuous curve which aligned the Corsair with the deck only at the last second before the aircraft touched down and trapped. This method allowed the pilot to keep the Landing Signals Officer in view right up to the moment the plane was over the fan-tail where the LSO gave the sign to either "cut" or make another attempt.

To alleviate the problem of oil and hydraulic fluid smearing the windshield, the Brits simply wired shut the cowl flaps across the top of the engine compartment, diverting the oil and hydraulic fluid around the sides of the fuselage. The left wing stall problem was solved through the addition of a small, 6-inch stall strip to the leading edge of the outer starboard wing, just inboard of the gun ports. This strip increased the stall characteristics of the right wing so that it stalled at the same speed as the left wing.

The landing bounce was solved by the addition of a "bleed" valve that slowly released the hydraulic pressure as the aircraft landed. With the bounce eliminated the tailhook problem vanished. These modifications were soon incorporated into the production line. In 1944 the US Navy decided to again try landing the F4U on carriers, and this time succeeded. However the "Ensign Eliminator" remained a difficult aircraft to land on a carrier.

Marine pilot John Geuss flew Corsairs in combat in World War II and Korea
"It was tough landing on the carrier," said the retired Marine Col.: "You come in at about 90 knots, which is about 10 knots above stalling speed, if you turn into the groove with the nose cocked up the only thing you see is the two LSOs at the ass-end of the platform, plus about 200,000 square miles of ocean. So while you can see the LSOs you can't see the deck. You can't see the deck at all. Because of its nose, the Corsair made you blind in a way that no other airplane did — not even the F6F Hellcat or F8F Bearcat, because you can see right over the nose of both of them."

During WWII F4Us flew 64,051 sorties of which only 15% were from carriers.

The Corsair is credited with downing 2,140 enemy aircraft with just 189 losses, an 11:1 air combat ratio. Although the F6F Hellcat is credited with a 19:1 ratio, some believe Corsair pilots faced more formidable adversaries under more difficult conditions.

 

[fubar57]

What part of your cut and paste says it isn't true Mike