Most Accurate War Film

[tpikdave]

You'd love the trivia sections of The Internet Movie Database (IMDb) you can spend days learning useless crap on there!

Thats a terrific site. I go there to verify just about any fact or actor "on the spot" .

 

[DOUGRD]

You'd love the trivia sections of The Internet Movie Database (IMDb) you can spend days learning useless crap on there!

Thanks! I'll go check it out. I like aircraft trivia too, like why are the wings on the f4u "bent"?

 

[Negative Creep]

Thanks! I'll go check it out. I like aircraft trivia too, like why are the wings on the f4u "bent"?

Isn't that because they could fold when in storage and not get in the way of the prop?

 

[tpikdave]

F4U Wings....

The way I read it was that the Corsair was designed around the 2,804 cubic inch Double Wasp R2800 engine of 1,850 hp (over 100hp per cylinder). This engine needed a huge (13ft) prop to take advantage of the thrust that that horsepower could deliver.

All carrier landing gear has to be very strong to withstand the dynamics of a carrier deck landing and a short, strong gear was required. There wouldn't be enough room in the wing to hold a longer gear anyway. And, if the prop were chopped shorter, much of the horsepower of the R2800 would be wasted.

Therefore: the bent wing or inverted gull shape was used so the designers got the short gear, and the long prop. Really a great example of "form follows function".

 

[renrich]

That is exactly right about shortening the landing gear. A collateral benefit of the inverted gull wing of the Corsair was that the intersection of the wing and the fuselage was at 90 degrees so there was no fairing need to smooth the intersection(as in most a/c.) This low drag feature was one of the reasons the Corsair had such good performance. When you think about it a mid wing configuration on a cylindrical fuselage(like the Corsair has) will accomplish the same low drag intersection but then you make the landing gear longer which is bad for carrier landings.

 

[renrich]

The negative on the inverted gull wing was that the structure for the center section of the wing was a complicated,large and heavy casting. The intriguing, to me, factor about a/c design, is that all WW2 a/c were a melding of compromises. One can study all the successful designs and pick out the priorities of the designers(and those of the service ordering the airplane) The one common denominator of almost all the premier fighters in WW2 was that they all had a great engine. Either a DB inline, a BMW radial, a RR inline or a PW radial.

 

[Cyrano]

 

[tpikdave]

Wonder why they couldn't have put the spinner on for a bit more realism? CAF right?

 

[renrich]

Probably because of engine cooling.

 

[tpikdave]

That makes sense. The AT6 was never meant for high performance anyway.

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

The Texans nose turns down more.

 

[Wildcat]

Here's one that fly's in Australia. note it has a spinner.
source www.warbidz.net

 

[renrich]

Good pictures, are you saying the A6M is a converted T6 because it looks like a real Zero?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yeap there are not eneogh Zeros around flying so many Texans have been converted to look like Zeros for use in movies and so forth. Just like they took the Ha's and made them look like Luftwaffe 109s for the movies.

 

[renrich]

In the pictures submitted by Wildcat, I believe that is a real A6M, tail # 288. If you look at the photos, all the details of the supposed Zero look correct but the real tipoff to me is that the leading edge of the "Zero's" wing meets the fuselage just behind the engine cowling whereas the SNJ's wing leading edge is back a foot or so from the cowling. A modified SNJ would not relocate the wing to impersonate a Zero.

 

[pbfoot]

Just look at the exhaust it's even easier

 

[Wildcat]

In the pictures submitted by Wildcat, I believe that is a real A6M, tail # 288. If you look at the photos, all the details of the supposed Zero look correct but the real tipoff to me is that the leading edge of the "Zero's" wing meets the fuselage just behind the engine cowling whereas the SNJ's wing leading edge is back a foot or so from the cowling. A modified SNJ would not relocate the wing to impersonate a Zero.

Nope, definately a modified T-6 that was used in the Tora film. The only real Zero in Australia is a static one in the AWM.

 

[Wildcat]

And not forgetting the Val and Kate replica's also made for the movie. The Kate was made with the tail section from a BT-13 and the forward section from a T-6.

 

[MacArther]

Now, if they can make all these reproduction versions of the planes for movies, why can't they start a new production line of certain planes for the rich collectors and displays?

 

[pbfoot]

Because your very limited for how much you can modify a T6