mikewint
Captain
O'Leary, Michael. United States Naval Fighters of World War II in Action. Poole, Dorset, UK: Blandford Press, 1980. ISBN 0-7137-0956-1
pp. 106-107
pp. 106-107
Foo Fighters
- Thread starter Bronc
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
fubar57
General
What? Adding the strip didn't stop the stall?
mikewint
Captain
It changed the stall characteristics of the right wing. Thus both wings would stall/drop at the same speed rather than just one dropping.
fubar57
General
But you quoted me and said....."Not exactly true" and now you are saying what I said
mikewint
Captain
You said "prevent a right wing stall"
From the Corsair's Operation Manual:
Stall speeds Stalls are quite abrupt and are signalled by a sudden drop in the left wing. Gear down, flaps 20-30 77 kts Clean 85 kts
The 6 inch "stall strip" caused the right wing to stall sooner. It did not prevent a stall it in effect caused a stall in the right wing to occur sooner. Thus the two wings stalled symmetrically at the same time and speed
From the Corsair's Operation Manual:
Stall speeds Stalls are quite abrupt and are signalled by a sudden drop in the left wing. Gear down, flaps 20-30 77 kts Clean 85 kts
The 6 inch "stall strip" caused the right wing to stall sooner. It did not prevent a stall it in effect caused a stall in the right wing to occur sooner. Thus the two wings stalled symmetrically at the same time and speed
fubar57
General
From "Detail & Scale", ".....This small spoiler was only six inches long but it was enough to cause the right wing to stall at the same time as the left, thus keeping the aircraft in level flight"
fubar57
General
Post #94 edited.
mikewint
Captain
Geo, somehow things are getting lost/confused in translation. You are now saying in post #94 that the stall strip on the right wing PREVENTS THE LEFT WING FROM STALLING. Consider that statement for a moment....How could anything on the RIGHT wing affect the aerodynamics of the LEFT wing?
Let me try once again. The problem with the Corsair was that the LEFT and RIGHT wings entered into a stall at different speeds.
As the aircraft's speed dropped the LEFT wing stalled first and deprived of lift it dropped precipitously. The RIGHT wing was unaffected and maintained its lift
So at 77kph the LEFT wing stalls while the RIGHT wing continues to maintain lift until the speed drops to 75kph when it stalls and looses lift.
The 6 inch stall strip alters the aerodynamics of the RIGHT wing degrading them. With the strip installed the lift performance of the RIGHT wing is degraded to the point that it (RIGHT WING) stalls and looses lift at the higher velocity of 77kph JUST LIKE THE LEFT WING.
The aircraft's stall characteristics are now equal in both wings
Let me try once again. The problem with the Corsair was that the LEFT and RIGHT wings entered into a stall at different speeds.
As the aircraft's speed dropped the LEFT wing stalled first and deprived of lift it dropped precipitously. The RIGHT wing was unaffected and maintained its lift
So at 77kph the LEFT wing stalls while the RIGHT wing continues to maintain lift until the speed drops to 75kph when it stalls and looses lift.
The 6 inch stall strip alters the aerodynamics of the RIGHT wing degrading them. With the strip installed the lift performance of the RIGHT wing is degraded to the point that it (RIGHT WING) stalls and looses lift at the higher velocity of 77kph JUST LIKE THE LEFT WING.
The aircraft's stall characteristics are now equal in both wings
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Seen here, is a rare color photo of a US Navy F4U taking off from a US Navy carrier during the Pacific war.
I say "rare" because it's been said the USN didn't operate Corsairs...
I say "rare" because it's been said the USN didn't operate Corsairs...
mikewint
Captain
During WWII F4Us flew 64,051 sorties of which only 15% were from carriers.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Which means the USN flew 9607 sorties with the F4U...
mikewint
Captain
Give or take a few. WWII carrier pilots did not care much for the Corsair. Mostly because of the tricky landing characteristics. Not being able to see the deck your supposed to be landing on must have a high pucker-factor.
Carrier pilots tended to prefer the more docile F6F Hellcat. Corsair was unforgiving to fly, the Hellcat was easy. This was not a trivial consideration at a time when the Navy was graduating thousands of new young ensigns. The F6F Hellcat was responsible for 75% of all aerial victories by the U.S. Navy in the Pacific Theater. Navy and Marine Hellcats flew 66,530 combat sorties, with 62,386 flown from aircraft carriers. They destroyed 5,163 enemy aircraft, losing 270 Hellcats to aerial combat. A kill ratio of over 19 : 1. The Hellcat was also responsible for dropping 6,503 tons of bombs in ground attacks.
The Navy's carrier-borne fighter was the Hellcat, and that was it. In June 1944, Task Force 58, in the Philippine Sea, had 450 fighters, all Hellcats. At the October 1944 Battle of Leyte Gulf, Task Force 38 had nearly 550 fighters all Hellcats.
Carrier pilots tended to prefer the more docile F6F Hellcat. Corsair was unforgiving to fly, the Hellcat was easy. This was not a trivial consideration at a time when the Navy was graduating thousands of new young ensigns. The F6F Hellcat was responsible for 75% of all aerial victories by the U.S. Navy in the Pacific Theater. Navy and Marine Hellcats flew 66,530 combat sorties, with 62,386 flown from aircraft carriers. They destroyed 5,163 enemy aircraft, losing 270 Hellcats to aerial combat. A kill ratio of over 19 : 1. The Hellcat was also responsible for dropping 6,503 tons of bombs in ground attacks.
The Navy's carrier-borne fighter was the Hellcat, and that was it. In June 1944, Task Force 58, in the Philippine Sea, had 450 fighters, all Hellcats. At the October 1944 Battle of Leyte Gulf, Task Force 38 had nearly 550 fighters all Hellcats.
John Frazer
Airman
- 43
- Apr 21, 2018
I stand entirely by what I said about the navy not using the corsair, but then later the visibility issue didn't bother them because they worked around it.
Lots of unsubstianted troll-like behavior vented at me in ignorant ranting, even by an admin, apparently.
But IDC, it doesn't hurt. Keep pouring it on.
Post-war accounts of the corsair in use have what to do with the period '41-'45? When the USN did not consider it suitable for carrier use.
BTW, the F.A.A. Fleet Air Arm is a part of the Royal Navy, I believe. I did correct my earlier mis-statement about the R.N. (common abbreviation for The U.K. ,"Royal Navy") so I was correct there too, despite the troll-like ranting about that.
Lots of unsubstianted troll-like behavior vented at me in ignorant ranting, even by an admin, apparently.
But IDC, it doesn't hurt. Keep pouring it on.
Post-war accounts of the corsair in use have what to do with the period '41-'45? When the USN did not consider it suitable for carrier use.
BTW, the F.A.A. Fleet Air Arm is a part of the Royal Navy, I believe. I did correct my earlier mis-statement about the R.N. (common abbreviation for The U.K. ,"Royal Navy") so I was correct there too, despite the troll-like ranting about that.
John Frazer
Airman
- 43
- Apr 21, 2018
15% of sorties with the Corsair, as documented by another, and _none_ operating off a carrier regularly until January '45.
That's 3+ of the worst years of the war, some of the biggest ever carrier battles, and not a single ship-board Corsair to be seen. Maybe a few, stopping by, before their Marine pilots take them back to their lsnd base.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I suppose it's easier to say "troll-like" instead of saying "oops, it appears that I was mistaken".
But the fact remains, the USN did operate the F4U from carriers, even if it was not in large numbers - although 9,000+ sorties IS a substantial number...
But the fact remains, the USN did operate the F4U from carriers, even if it was not in large numbers - although 9,000+ sorties IS a substantial number...
Shortround6
Major General
It is actually 2 years of the war, not 3+.
with only 178 built in 1942 and 68 of the them in December the Corsairs contribution in 1942 was nil, either from a carrier or from land.
Went into action Jan 1943 on land, Went into action ( although assigned earlier)from US carriers Jan 1945. Two years.
BTW Corsairs did operate from the US carrier Enterprise from Jan 1944 in small numbers, Four F4U-2Ns were operated as night fighters. They score 3 claims at the end of June 1944.
The Fellow on the right, 2nd Lt Gilbert Dixon Boyd, was the father of of a good boyhood friend of mine.
VMF-124 Deployed on the USS Essex Dec 28th 1944.
with only 178 built in 1942 and 68 of the them in December the Corsairs contribution in 1942 was nil, either from a carrier or from land.
Went into action Jan 1943 on land, Went into action ( although assigned earlier)from US carriers Jan 1945. Two years.
BTW Corsairs did operate from the US carrier Enterprise from Jan 1944 in small numbers, Four F4U-2Ns were operated as night fighters. They score 3 claims at the end of June 1944.
The Fellow on the right, 2nd Lt Gilbert Dixon Boyd, was the father of of a good boyhood friend of mine.
VMF-124 Deployed on the USS Essex Dec 28th 1944.
Greg Boeser
1st Sergeant
VF-17 was second USN Corsair squadron, operated Corsairs from CV-17 during its sea trials, but went to shore when the carrier arrived in Hawaii in October 1943.
Flew a shuttle mission 11 November from shore base in Solomons to fly CAP over TF 38, landing and refueling aboard the carriers.
Flew a shuttle mission 11 November from shore base in Solomons to fly CAP over TF 38, landing and refueling aboard the carriers.
stug3
Staff Sergeant
We know what 'foo fighters' that buzzed Second World War pilots really were, say scientists
New study suggests the phenomena were plasmas, or ionised gases, drawn to the electrical charge of aircraft, spacecraft and satellites.
Experts from the universities of California, Arizona and the Harvard-Smithsonian argue that the strange properties of plasmas make them appear to behave like living organisms, even though they are not alive.
Plasmas can grow in size and replicate, make contact with each other and may "feed" off the electromagnetic radiation of satellites and spacecraft, they argue.
Huge glowing masses of up to a mile wide, which behave similarly to swarms of living organisms, have been filmed by 10 Nasa space shuttle missions, while astronauts have reported strange phenomena since the 1960s.
Astronauts Ed White and James McDivitt spotted a huge "metallic object" approaching the Gemini 4 orbiter, in June 1965, while James Lovell reported a "Bogey at 10 o'clock high" on a mission six months later.
The team believe that plasmas in the thermosphere – 66 to 372 miles high – may descend into the lower atmosphere, and account for reports by pilots.
Co-author Dr Rudolph Schild, of the Centre for Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian: "These plasmas are electromagnetic entities that have a variety of shapes and sizes. They have repeatedly approached spacecraft and the space shuttles and are attracted to electromagnetic activity including thunderstorms
New study suggests the phenomena were plasmas, or ionised gases, drawn to the electrical charge of aircraft, spacecraft and satellites.
Experts from the universities of California, Arizona and the Harvard-Smithsonian argue that the strange properties of plasmas make them appear to behave like living organisms, even though they are not alive.
Plasmas can grow in size and replicate, make contact with each other and may "feed" off the electromagnetic radiation of satellites and spacecraft, they argue.
Huge glowing masses of up to a mile wide, which behave similarly to swarms of living organisms, have been filmed by 10 Nasa space shuttle missions, while astronauts have reported strange phenomena since the 1960s.
Astronauts Ed White and James McDivitt spotted a huge "metallic object" approaching the Gemini 4 orbiter, in June 1965, while James Lovell reported a "Bogey at 10 o'clock high" on a mission six months later.
The team believe that plasmas in the thermosphere – 66 to 372 miles high – may descend into the lower atmosphere, and account for reports by pilots.
Co-author Dr Rudolph Schild, of the Centre for Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian: "These plasmas are electromagnetic entities that have a variety of shapes and sizes. They have repeatedly approached spacecraft and the space shuttles and are attracted to electromagnetic activity including thunderstorms
