Author Topic: Holes in the F4U-1 (Read 1254 times)

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #15 on:** March 14, 2007, 05:48:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Puck
That fails the sanity test. In what way does a glass floor collect dirt and debris in a manner unlike an aluminum floor? Personally I think they didn't like the feeling of nothing between them and the ground. As for double layering, if the space between them was sealed you're just trying to get the crud off both sides. In a Hog I could see where that would be entertaining.

Overall, however, this has been very interesting and well worth the question. I'd never thought of glass floors in a fighter.

You can't get in there to clean. Plus I read the window would get so cruddy from mud and oil it wasnt usable anyway.

nirvana · « **Reply #16 on:** March 17, 2007, 12:44:46 AM »

He's saying the space between the two panes was sealed, therefore only the outer surfaces would need cleaning.

Charge · « **Reply #17 on:** March 17, 2007, 01:02:54 PM »

Well, I thought that naval planes had the floor window simply becasue of better visibility so you did not need to roll the plane to see below you. Very useful feature in a naval fighter, which also had to do recon missions to find enemy shipping, don't you think?

-C+

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #18 on:** March 19, 2007, 03:12:53 PM »

The window got painted over alot, and they removed it from production atleast by the 1D, and possible in the -1 production run, WW or F4UDOA may know better dates.

Bodhi · « **Reply #19 on:** March 19, 2007, 07:53:11 PM »

The deletion of the window has more to do with structure changes than anything else. Although as mentioned before, the window was frequently obscured owing to oil stains on the aircraft ventral surfaces.

In case anyone has not looked, Cosairs leak like sieves... and the -1's to -1d's do it throught the bottom of the accessory section.

Puck · « **Reply #20 on:** March 20, 2007, 10:55:58 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bodhi
The deletion of the window has more to do with structure changes than anything else. Although as mentioned before, the window was frequently obscured owing to oil stains on the aircraft ventral surfaces.

In case anyone has not looked, Cosairs leak like sieves... and the -1's to -1d's do it throught the bottom of the accessory section.

Rather like the LaGG-3 in radial engine form.

I was reading an account of a pilot who noticed a larger than normal oil stream on the window in Tillman a couple days ago. Engine lost half its oil supply and still flew him home. He also commented that the window was almost always covered with dirt and oil, so I suspect it wasn't very useful.

Just to hijack the topic, I read on-line somewhere (educational equivalent of a tabloid) that "The army air corps admitted the F4U airframe was tougher than even the tank-like P47". Is it just me or is that very unlikely on a number of technical, political, and egotistical levels?

Bodhi · « **Reply #21 on:** March 20, 2007, 11:44:56 AM »

I find the statement that the F4u airframe is stronger than the P-47 a very hard one to back up.

The centersection of the wing on the Corsair specifically the gear tourque boxes might be somewhat tougher, but that too is hard to defend as the 47 has a large milled one piece casting for it's mains. The fuselage on the F4u is definitely weaker in the middle as it is made up of two subassemblies. They almost always break at that production joint during forced landings leaving the pilot in a very precarious situation. The engines are both 2800's, but the 47 does not have the troublesome internal blower that the Corsair has.

I really do not know, but I suspect that the 47 will put up with more punishment.

frank3 · « **Reply #22 on:** March 20, 2007, 12:16:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Charge
Well, I thought that naval planes had the floor window simply becasue of better visibility so you did not need to roll the plane to see below you. Very useful feature in a naval fighter, which also had to do recon missions to find enemy shipping, don't you think?

-C+

Surely it gives a little better view downwards, but I doubt its purpose was for recon missions.
And I doubt even more that they would use fuel guzzling fighters

Puck · « **Reply #23 on:** March 20, 2007, 12:30:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by frank3
Surely it gives a little better view downwards, but I doubt its purpose was for recon missions.
And I doubt even more that they would use fuel guzzling fighters

Uh...You mean fuel guzzling fighters like the F-4/5 and F-6 recon variants of the P-38 and P-51 respectively?

frank3 · « **Reply #24 on:** March 21, 2007, 02:58:31 AM »

I'm not talking about the special reckon versions, but about the topic's type: F4U-1 and similar.
In general, bombers (twin/4 engined) were relatively more fuel efficient.

Charge · « **Reply #25 on:** March 21, 2007, 04:26:34 AM »

"Surely it gives a little better view downwards, but I doubt its purpose was for recon missions.
And I doubt even more that they would use fuel guzzling fighters "

I didn't find any pictures of the floor window but I assumed it is somehow similar to that on Brewster, of course you can't really see the carrier through a window straight below you if you are approaching it and I don't know what planes they used for scouting or CAP. I just assumed they would use fighters.

The Brester Buffalo had a rather big window straight below the pilot and I assumed there was somekind of logic behind installing the floor windows on naval fighters.

BTW, interesting reading:

http://www.sikorskyarchives.com/newsindex/News%20March%2001%20Corsair.pdf

-C+

38ruk · « **Reply #26 on:** March 21, 2007, 03:16:04 PM »

I would guess that not having the extra layer of protection underneath the pilots would make them dislike the non floored model's . While the extra layer the floor added probably didnt do much to protect them , physcologically the floor was atleast something when a ton of flak was being shot up at them . Ofcourse it's just speculation on my part .