Straight-winged F4U

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

gjs238

Tech Sergeant
1,889
329
Mar 26, 2009
If the prop were available, would it be more effective to have a smaller, 4 or 5 bladed prop and straight wings as opposed to the historical 3 or 4 bladed prop and inverted gull wings?
 
The inverted gull wings gave the advantage of reduced interference drag at the wing root area, due to the fact that the joined the fuselage at 90º.
So, I would guess that the gull-wing arrangement would be more efficient.
 
Like. A lot of good engineers they were trying to do several things at once.

Getting long enough landing gear for 2000hp propellers was always a problem. Both extending landing gear and articulated landing gear were used in addition to 4/5 blade props. Prop blade cord/width also went up to handle thepower.

Early 4 blade props for the R-2800 were over 12 ft so you don't gain a lotnovernthe 13' 4" prop on the F4U.
 
The F6F, P-47 and Tempest II were managing it with less radical wing shape. P-47 used the extendable/retractable struts to clear the ducting tunnel - no tunnel, no need to use such thing? The P-47 U/C system was heavier than simple system used by F6F, ~1120 lbs vs. 740-750 for the F6F, even the tricycle gear of the P-38 was under 890 lbs.
The flap system for the F4U was no simple affair either, comprising from 6 flap parts subsystems per plane.

Now if some kind soul would post the weight of wing and U/C of the F4U* and Tempest II, my 'main' PC is of no good :(
Wing was ~1450 lbs heavy on the P-47, ~2030 on the F6F, 1860 for the P-38J.

*a link to the file would be even better :)
 
Last edited:
I really don't know Allied planes very well, but I thought the whole design evolved from the engine. That engine with those propellors required a higher stance, etc. So, a redesign would negate everything that was the Corsair, yes?
 
Grandfather of Tempest II Sea Fury: the Hawker Tornado with Bristol Centaurus. Maybe not the pretties plane around, but F4U wasn't that either.

centaurus tornado.jpg
 
Are you guys aware of this?

VS%20326%20on%20runway%20r.jpg


VS-326%20%20in%20flight%20r.jpg


CDI5CA0.jpg



In 1941, a request was received from Pratt Whitney for two single-engine, 4-place high altitude test aircraft. The aircraft were to be used primarily for testing larger aircraft engines, propellers, and associated accessories. They featured a pressure cabin isolated from the structure. The basic structure, except for the fuselage, was similar to the XTBU-L These aircraft were designated VS-326 and VS-326A.
 
Joe, you are a cruel man. Now, where is that Sea Fury picture, so I my eyes can recover...
 
I'll upload the F4U specifications later in the Technical section. The wing group was at 2145 lbs, compared with
Wing was ~1450 lbs heavy on the P-47, ~2030 on the F6F, 1860 for the P-38J.
The UC was at 704 lbs, compared with:
The P-47 U/C system was heavier than simple system used by F6F, ~1120 lbs vs. 740-750 for the F6F, even the tricycle gear of the P-38 was under 890 lbs.

These two elements combined weight 2849 lbs, P-47 was at 2570, F6F was at 2770-2780 lbs, the P-38J was at 2750.
 
That looks like something only Pennsylvania or NY football team supporters could love.. surprised the pop tart whisperer didn't fall in love IMMEDIATELY.

I will have you know, sir, thats only because it doesn't have training wheels and a coupon for K-Mart!
 
That looks like something only Pennsylvania or NY football team supporters could love.. surprised the pop tart whisperer didn't fall in love IMMEDIATELY.

hey!! i resemble that remark...lol. looks arent everything....i could put up with an ugly plane depending on how it handled in the air. and what may i ask is on the tail of that 4 place P47 looking one?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back