As I remember when it first flew it didnt even make full use of the power it had and needed a different propeller. There were a lot of lessons needed to be learned very quickly. Between 1940 and 1945 front line planes went from 1000 to 2000+ BHP and in fact reached the limits of what is practically possible with reciprocating engines. The stories of problems on the Corsair are way overblown and seem to assume that making a 2000BHP monoplane that can be landed by an average service pilot on a carrier is an easy task.
Recurring Theme in WW2 Aviation
- Thread starter Robert Porter
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Major General
Grumman, in most of their war time contracts, worked on a cost plus 3% profit margin. Costs were gone over by government accountants. Engines, propellers, radios, guns and some other equipment was supplied by the government to Grumman and the other aircraft makers.
P&W charged ONE dollar per engine licence fee for engines made by other contractors and even waived that late in the war.
I am not saying profiteering didn't happen on WW II but it wasn't done by major contractors, too much scrutiny for one thing. Contracts were also renegotiated and prices adjusted due to production experience for later batches.
In many of the shadow factories the machinery was owned by the government and sometimes the building while a private company handled the management. At the end of the war the doors were locked, the workers went home or found jobs in private industry, management went back to their old jobs (mostly car industry). Government sometimes sold the building and machinery surplus and sometimes kept them shuttered for years, a few were reopened during Korea.
There was certainly no incentive or profit advantage to be had by using lower power engines since the government was supplying the engines.
P&W charged ONE dollar per engine licence fee for engines made by other contractors and even waived that late in the war.
I am not saying profiteering didn't happen on WW II but it wasn't done by major contractors, too much scrutiny for one thing. Contracts were also renegotiated and prices adjusted due to production experience for later batches.
In many of the shadow factories the machinery was owned by the government and sometimes the building while a private company handled the management. At the end of the war the doors were locked, the workers went home or found jobs in private industry, management went back to their old jobs (mostly car industry). Government sometimes sold the building and machinery surplus and sometimes kept them shuttered for years, a few were reopened during Korea.
There was certainly no incentive or profit advantage to be had by using lower power engines since the government was supplying the engines.
Robert, how could you have read that much about WWII aviation and not realized what huge changes in technology, combat tactics and strategy, military doctrine, political situation, and resource availability were all happening simultaneously and on various timeframes. Airframes were designed to rapidly changing specs to use projected engine/propeller combinations that didn't always perform as advertised or weren't available when expected. Underperforming engines were "saved" by advances in fuel or propellers. Changing combat requirements dictated production changes, adding weight always and drag usually. Planes came off the assembly line straight into a rework center where the mods were applied that had become effective just since that batch went into production.
It looks needlessly hectic, clumsy, and chaotic to modern eyes, but remember they didn't have the instant communications, especially the conferencing, or the fabulous computation capabilities we enjoy. Pencil, paper, slipstick, and telephone, that's all, folks!
Shortround6
Major General
I would also note that fuel changed dramatically in under 10 years. You went from about 68 PN (87 Oct) to 150 PN fuel which radically changed the power you could get out of certain engines. It changed the amount of allowable boost and the type of superchargers that were needed. 87 Oct didn't really need 2 stage superchargers.
The Corsair was not dropped from US carrier use due to any problems with the aircraft -- two years of research at the US National Archives has found nothing but glowing reports of the aircraft's carrier capabilities up to the time it was replaced by Hellcats. The carrier restriction was based on the Navy's supply train -- the Fleet found it easier to maintain and supply one fighter type at sea, and there were several Hellcat squadrons in commission with only two Corsair units ready to put to sea.
The decision to move the F4U to land-based operations came in August 1943, after the right wing stall strip had been developed, after the raised cockpit/canopy was in service use, after the raised tail wheel strut had been introduced, and after VF-17 had been declared carrier qualified.
By early 1944, BuAer was pressing the Fleet to reconsider the F4U -- it was faster, and newer versions (initially the F4U-4, with plans for the FG-4 and F3A-4 to follow) could beat the F6F by 20 MPH. But by then the Corsair had received a number of changes to improve its rough field landing capabilities. In mid-1944 carrier qualifications were underway, and it was then that the bounce was discovered. By year's end a main strut inflation system was on the production line and available in kits -- new Corsair units put to sea beginning in late December.
The Brits get a lot of credit for teaching the Americans how to put Corsairs on carriers, but the records don't support this. VF-17 was very happy flying from carrier decks weeks before the first Corsair Mk.I was delivered to the FAA. Films show the aircraft approaching the flight decks from the standard orbit, not something learned from the Brits.
The early Corsair engine did have a problem at high altitudes -- but this was a came from the ignition system, not the engine. In thinner air the harness, mags, and distributors would short as the spark jumped the gaps. A replacement pressurized ignition ended that problem in late 1943.
Much of the "history" we've read about the Corsair came from authors assembling the facts, then fitting the pieces together to make sense of what happened. The Navy's records give a very different story.
Cheers,
Dana
The decision to move the F4U to land-based operations came in August 1943, after the right wing stall strip had been developed, after the raised cockpit/canopy was in service use, after the raised tail wheel strut had been introduced, and after VF-17 had been declared carrier qualified.
By early 1944, BuAer was pressing the Fleet to reconsider the F4U -- it was faster, and newer versions (initially the F4U-4, with plans for the FG-4 and F3A-4 to follow) could beat the F6F by 20 MPH. But by then the Corsair had received a number of changes to improve its rough field landing capabilities. In mid-1944 carrier qualifications were underway, and it was then that the bounce was discovered. By year's end a main strut inflation system was on the production line and available in kits -- new Corsair units put to sea beginning in late December.
The Brits get a lot of credit for teaching the Americans how to put Corsairs on carriers, but the records don't support this. VF-17 was very happy flying from carrier decks weeks before the first Corsair Mk.I was delivered to the FAA. Films show the aircraft approaching the flight decks from the standard orbit, not something learned from the Brits.
The early Corsair engine did have a problem at high altitudes -- but this was a came from the ignition system, not the engine. In thinner air the harness, mags, and distributors would short as the spark jumped the gaps. A replacement pressurized ignition ended that problem in late 1943.
Much of the "history" we've read about the Corsair came from authors assembling the facts, then fitting the pieces together to make sense of what happened. The Navy's records give a very different story.
Cheers,
Dana
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
One of the key issues of military (and aviation in general) during the late 1930's, was the rapid rate of aviation development - add the war into the mix (late 1930's theough 1945) and you'll see aircraft that were being developed in order to be an edge against the enemy were nearly outdated by the time they went into service.
A prime example of this would be that Biplanes were in service when the war started and by the end, there were Jet aircraft in the skies. Perhaps one of the few periods in human history where technology took such a hugh leap.
The other thing I wanted to mention, is that the P-47 was a beast when it was first delivered into service and just kept getting meaner as the years went by - I cannot think of any time someone complained that it was underpowered.
A prime example of this would be that Biplanes were in service when the war started and by the end, there were Jet aircraft in the skies. Perhaps one of the few periods in human history where technology took such a hugh leap.
The other thing I wanted to mention, is that the P-47 was a beast when it was first delivered into service and just kept getting meaner as the years went by - I cannot think of any time someone complained that it was underpowered.
[QUOTE="Dana Bell, post: 1295200, member: 70521"
The Brits get a lot of credit for teaching the Americans how to put Corsairs on carriers, but the records don't support this. VF-17 was very happy flying from carrier decks weeks before the first Corsair Mk.I was delivered to the FAA. Films show the aircraft approaching the flight decks from the standard orbit, not something learned from the Brits.
[/QUOTE]
I never understood the source of all this, even in the bi plane era pilots made a curved approach, it is the only way to keep the airfield in view.
The Brits get a lot of credit for teaching the Americans how to put Corsairs on carriers, but the records don't support this. VF-17 was very happy flying from carrier decks weeks before the first Corsair Mk.I was delivered to the FAA. Films show the aircraft approaching the flight decks from the standard orbit, not something learned from the Brits.
[/QUOTE]
I never understood the source of all this, even in the bi plane era pilots made a curved approach, it is the only way to keep the airfield in view.
Robert S. Johnson in "Thunderbolt" complained the early Jugs with their toothpick propellers were badly outclimbed by BFs and FWs. Paddle props fixed that.
That will depend on what altitude we're talkig about. Above 20000 ft the P-47 will outclimb the Fw 190 (and outpace it handily), and the Bf 109 will not be outclimbing the P-47, nor outpacing it, and that is with toothpick props in 1943. Stona/Steve posted several German reports where the Fw 190's drivers declined to attack bomber formations in case they just saw P-47s shepperd them.
Another thing is that neither Fw 190 nor Bf 109 could carry thousand or two pounds worth of guns and ammo 450-600-more miles away from their bases, take it on 1st line enemy fighter opposition, and then came back home to tell about it.
BTW - when paddle blade props were installed, along with water injection kit, both German fighter types also got increase of power under those 15000-20000 ft, so they still were better climbers under 20000 ft.
Another thing is that neither Fw 190 nor Bf 109 could carry thousand or two pounds worth of guns and ammo 450-600-more miles away from their bases, take it on 1st line enemy fighter opposition, and then came back home to tell about it.
BTW - when paddle blade props were installed, along with water injection kit, both German fighter types also got increase of power under those 15000-20000 ft, so they still were better climbers under 20000 ft.
If I may add a bit or two about this.
There were several institutions/companies/individuals that were aware their product has this or that fault, yet they continued with practice that warranted trial for treason. The US torpedo scandal is perhaps a prime example, then we have the Wright at Lockland wrongdoings (two links are here), Willy Messerschmitt refusing to change Me 210 fuselage from short to long after the engineers deduced it would've made the 210 a safe aircraft. British have had a host of problems with Castle Bromwich factory where plenty of money was invested to produce Spitfires (link), where a host of individuals, from managers down, were dragging their feet in horrible fashion and what not. We have companies, like Brewster in the USA, that went bankrupt due to producing aircraft of apaling quality.
On the other hand, when boundaries were pushed in a major way, like Corsair, P-47, Typhoon, Fw 190 etc. with their new engines were doing, one can expect a hiccup or two.
michaelmaltby
Colonel
I believe there was a scandal involving Allison engine sub-contractors ... Arthur Miller wrote a play about it.
michaelmaltby
Colonel
Not much to tell that I know but it is my understanding that this play was based on a real scandal:
All My Sons Summary - eNotes.com
All My Sons Summary - eNotes.com
Looks to me that the play was based on the Lockwood, Ohio scandal, and historically that was the case involving production of R-2600 engines, not Allison's V-1710s.
All My Sons - Wikipedia
All My Sons - Wikipedia
Greg Boeser
1st Sergeant
Yes but the play makes clear that the son's plane (an Army fighter) was not one that used the defective engine.
In the BBC's TV show 'Decisive weapons', the man-who-was-there describes how the Allison-engined Mustang 'have had no supercharging'. Anyone that was here for some time will know that was not the case. However, people that looked the episode named 'Caddilac of the sky' will therefore conclude that Allison engine was without supercharger.
My point - let's take a look at facts, not fiction, even the documentaries need to be taken with grain of salt.
My point - let's take a look at facts, not fiction, even the documentaries need to be taken with grain of salt.
drgondog
Major
When ya wanna improve Rate of Climb you either cut weight or Increase Power Available over Power Required.
Virtually All of the WWII top fighters when tested in early stages reflected a comment by test pilot "Could Use (or Need) More Power to improve Climb.
Virtually All of the WWII top fighters when tested in early stages reflected a comment by test pilot "Could Use (or Need) More Power to improve Climb.
And virtually all of those same fighters also first flew with an engine developing less HP than the airframe was intended for. In most cases the engine was as much under development as the airframe.
