Agree, some planes are better to leave as-is. Mossie, Spit, La-7, Ki-84, F4U, Zero, Yak-1 -3, P-51 -47, 109, 190, G-55... Masterpieces.
Ultimate WWII fighter
- Thread starter herman1rg
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Agree, some planes are better to leave as-is. Mossie, Spit, La-7, Ki-84, F4U, Zero, Yak-1 -3, P-51 -47, 109, 190, G-55... Masterpieces.
T Bolt
Colonel
The F4U with Napier Sabre II would've been able to really rock - say, late 1943 (bug-free by that time) for 2200 HP, 2500 HP for early 1945, or 3000 HPfor mid '45?
With R-2800 it was already well powerful, though
Yes but still as aerodynamic as a brick wall. A liquid cooled engine gives it a graceful look that I would have thought imposable in the corsair. I just don't know how well the narrower engine would fit with the wider body of the F4U. Might take some redesign of the fuselage back to the cockpit.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
The XF4U was flying in 1940. Following up on Bill's post, an exclusively land based version could have been developed with the following modifications:
No wing fold which would have saved weight.
Redesign landing gear and airframe to eliminate the need for the structural strength to withstand carrier landings which would save weight.
No marinisation. All that anti-corrosion adds weight.
Retain the internal wing tanks which give it 361 gallons of internal fuel.
Use a supercharger setup for slightly better high altitude performance but with automatic blower controls.
Leave off the right wing spoiler as the stall characteristics were adequate for land based use and the spoiler hurt the sustained turn ability.
Ultimately a bubble cockpit could be fitted like the F2G1D.
With lighter weight and higher critical altitude, Vmax, climb and range would all be improved.
The Corsair wing could accomodate almost any armament mix with a heavy ammo load, but one option could be two-20mms and four 50 mgs.
This ultimate Corsair could have filled the role of interceptor, escort fighter, fighter-bomber, dive bomber, night fighter(with radar) or photo-recon. In reality the standard Corsair filled those roles but the modified only land based Corsair would have been more effective.
No wing fold which would have saved weight.
Redesign landing gear and airframe to eliminate the need for the structural strength to withstand carrier landings which would save weight.
No marinisation. All that anti-corrosion adds weight.
Retain the internal wing tanks which give it 361 gallons of internal fuel.
Use a supercharger setup for slightly better high altitude performance but with automatic blower controls.
Leave off the right wing spoiler as the stall characteristics were adequate for land based use and the spoiler hurt the sustained turn ability.
Ultimately a bubble cockpit could be fitted like the F2G1D.
With lighter weight and higher critical altitude, Vmax, climb and range would all be improved.
The Corsair wing could accomodate almost any armament mix with a heavy ammo load, but one option could be two-20mms and four 50 mgs.
This ultimate Corsair could have filled the role of interceptor, escort fighter, fighter-bomber, dive bomber, night fighter(with radar) or photo-recon. In reality the standard Corsair filled those roles but the modified only land based Corsair would have been more effective.
Attachments
T Bolt
Colonel
Yea I thought it might look strange from the top. Too bad, it looked great from the side
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Yep, and that fuel tank was over the CG and the wing tanks were also so a CG shift did not happen as the tanks went dry. The negative was that the cockpit was pretty far aft which was not that bad a liability except for carrier landings.
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
I'd knock on NAA's door with a truckload of Griffon 61s and ask them to build around one of those what was currently wrapped around the Merlin but with everything scaled and tuned to the new powerplant. I've a feeling we'd lose some of those beautiful, smooth lines directly behind the prop and some of the range but what a hot ship.
MikeGazdik
Senior Airman
Sold!! Thanks Tomo for the Griffon-Cobra!
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
I would go along with this. The only change I would make is, for the land based version, that I would change the bent wing for a straight wing with standard inward retracting, lighter loaded landing gear. Some airspeed would be sacrificed (probably insignificant since most later high performance props were low wing monoplanes without 90 degree fuselage interface) but should save some hundreds of pounds in gear and wing design and do wonders for producibility and cost. Later updates would be a low drag wing. I do think that more than a slightly better high altitude supercharger was needed to really overpower attacking LW fighters. I think that one of the major strengths of the P-51/P-47 were that they completely dominated the high ground in defense of the bombers.
I thought one of the reasons Vought went with the inverted gull wing was the large diameter of the airscrew. With the same engine, is it even possible to create an F4U with a straight wing without introducing an extremely complex landing gear retraction/telescoping system or making so many other modifications you loose the presumed advantages of the straight wing?
I know nothing about how propellers actually work in detail. It it possible a 5-bladed prop could have reduced the disk diameter?
Shortround6
Major General
It would have, but I am not sure when the 5 blades props first came into use.
The companies knew and understood the 3 blade props and simply needed to scale up existing hubs/blades.
NAA did look at a Griffin Mustang. The layout was similar to the P-39/63, ie mid engined.
drgondog
Major
One of the key design factors is tip speed - lower rpm enables larger diameter blade.. 3, 4 or 5 blade props are all about getting design 'bite'/disk density for the high priority requirements.. (i.e climb vs cruise, best performance at top speeds or more emphasis on cruise efficiency).
Look at the evolution from tapered/thick airfoil props to flat tip, extremely thin props as engine rpm and torque improved - thereby designing for higher density with higher rpm and still delaying critcal mach along the blade and tip.l
Look at the evolution from tapered/thick airfoil props to flat tip, extremely thin props as engine rpm and torque improved - thereby designing for higher density with higher rpm and still delaying critcal mach along the blade and tip.l
Last edited:
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
I think that here is a little misconception among us WW2 aircraft lovers about the high altitude capability of the Corsair specifically and all USN fighters generally. On page 594 of "America's Hundred Thousand," there is a chart comparing fighter power loadings at 10000, 20000 and 30000 feet. The F4U1D had a power loading of 9.83 pound/ horsepower at 30000 feet. It still was developing 1250 HP under Mil power at that altitude. The P51D had a power loading of 10.60 lb/hp with mil power and 960 hp. Of course the P51 had a lower drag coefficient so that made up for some of the power loading deficiency. The critical altitude of the F4U1D was 20000 feet where it could get 425 mph. The critical altitude of the P51D was 25000 feet where it could get 435 mph. Maybe a slight change in supercharger is not appropriate language. The F4U5 was stilll putting out 1900 HP at 25000 feet and could do more than 460 mph at 31400 with the R2800-32W engine but it had a different supercharger than the F4U1D. That same engine in the modified, lightened Corsair must have put it at the edge of piston engine performance.
As far as the prop goes, in 1940, maybe the Corsair needed the 13 foot prop to use all the power. Without the inverted gull wing the landing gear would have been a spindly affair and the drag penalty of a low wing might have canceled out the weight and complexity savings.
At any rate, it seems to me that the modifications the Corsair could have implemented could have resulted in an all around fighter equal or better than any in WW2 except for the range ultimate range issue. Nothing as far as single engined fighter could equal the P51, except possibly the P47N but the F4U could have gone the same route with the extended wet wing.
As far as the prop goes, in 1940, maybe the Corsair needed the 13 foot prop to use all the power. Without the inverted gull wing the landing gear would have been a spindly affair and the drag penalty of a low wing might have canceled out the weight and complexity savings.
At any rate, it seems to me that the modifications the Corsair could have implemented could have resulted in an all around fighter equal or better than any in WW2 except for the range ultimate range issue. Nothing as far as single engined fighter could equal the P51, except possibly the P47N but the F4U could have gone the same route with the extended wet wing.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
From what I know the Db-601N was in production since the end of 1939, altough th first combat units didn´t got these powereplants until summer 1940 (Bf-109e4/n Bf-110C4/n). So we have the same delay with the introduction of the Db-601N which later happened to the Db-601E.
The first bf-109 with db-601e was -v24 which went airborne with this engine jule, 10th, 1940. It took a year until the -109f4 with db-601e went into serial production.
There simply were not enough engines aviable to equip the bf109f2 with them.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
double post
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
There seems to be some problem here. AAF test, Chart under Section V, shows that the -7 engine generates approximately 1100 hp at 30k ft.
P 51B Performance Test
Also, flight test chart shows that, above 26k ft., hp for 61" MIL, 67" WEP, and 75" WEP are equal (equal speed) so 1100 hp would apply.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51b-44-1-level.jpg
20k ft comparison appears correct.
Spindly gear would most likely be acceptable for the much less strength requirements of land based applications. I don't think the perpendicular rule is very much of a deal since almost all (all?, well maybe the F7F) high performance aircraft after the F4U used a low mounted straight wing. I think the gear mounting and manufacturing advantages over came any minor aero impacts.
For the most part, I agree with you. If there was only one aircraft for WW2 for both and Army and Navy, the F4U would be the only selection due to all you have said. However, I would push the development of the -18 engine, certainly the supercharger. I think the -8 engine, even with water, did not provide enough excess performance over the German fighters at bomber altitudes. It would have sufficed but the losses would have been higher. I would want the lightened F4U-4 flying by early '44. That would do nicely. If I had two choices, one Navy, one Army, I would select the P-51 for the Army.
It they just could have put in that turbosupercharged -57 engine from the P-47M/N, wow, 2800 hp from 5k to 33k, about 2600 hp at 40k. Even the F4U-5 only had 2350 hp at 25k.
