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.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I could not see a Corsair with a Griffon engine. Just not right...
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
That F4U with the Griffon is one mean looking machine!! Someone should kitbash one together! What would it look like from the top?
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.
Like this?
Not the happiest result...
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.
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 know nothing about how propellers actually work in detail. It it possible a 5-bladed prop could have reduced the disk diameter?
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.
Yep, AFAIK it was used on the 109F-4 of (mid?) 1941; the F-1 F-2 using 601N (early 1941), while F-0 used 601Aa (end 1940).
Why such a delay?
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.
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.
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.