F4U Wing

[Muzzy]

I think you're partly right about that. The British were the first to figure out how to land safely by dropping down beneath deck level and popping up to land on the deck, I believe. A navy squadron was the first to deploy to a CV, but I think they were told it was too dangerous (which they objected to) and that if they wanted to keep their hogs they had to deploy to a land base. It wasn't until later that the British figured out how to land the hog safely on a CV.

[Saxman]

I think you're partly right about that. The British were the first to figure out how to land safely by dropping down beneath deck level and popping up to land on the deck, I believe. A navy squadron was the first to deploy to a CV, but I think they were told it was too dangerous (which they objected to) and that if they wanted to keep their hogs they had to deploy to a land base. It wasn't until later that the British figured out how to land the hog safely on a CV.

The technique used was a curved approach, which kept the deck in sight up until the last second as the pilot straightened out and flared for landing.

[Muzzy]

I stand corrected.

[Bodhi]

VF-17 was proving the Corsair was fully carrier-capable, and most of the main technical problems had been resolved, by the time the F6F arrived. The big problem was Vought couldn't build them fast enough to keep up with demand. Yes, the F4U was more complicated to build, but the slow pace owed as much to Vought's manufacturing capacity just plain being overwhelmed altogether (not at all helped that Brewster's Corsairs were unfit for service).

Having worked extensively on Corsairs and a fair bit of the F6F, I would definitely say the complexity of construction definitely goes to the Corsair.  As for overall better construction, it was to go to the F6F.  The F6F was a far better (and easier) aircraft to maintain and build.

One of the biggest complaints we had in restoration of the Corsair was the plethora of absolutely unique hardware that was used in it's construction.  That and over complicated ways to put things together.  Gosh I used to hate it when we were trying to source unique 82 degree countersunk screws.  Vought reminds me of Lockheed when it comes to their damned proprietary hardware. 

[Cthulhu]

The technique used was a curved approach, which kept the deck in sight up until the last second as the pilot straightened out and flared for landing.

Saxman is right. Modifying the approach resolved the visibility problem which was the biggest issue with landing the hog. It worked so well that the same technique was eventually employed with the F6F's.

Except Vought forgot that they were supposed to be building a carrier plane.

Guilty as charged. Vought's approach to carrier suitability has always been a bit oddball. From the crazy nose-high attitude of the F7U (pretty much a flying wing, and they don't rotate worth a damn), to the articulated wing of the F8U.

[Bodhi]

Saxman is right. Modifying the approach resolved the visibility problem which was the biggest issue with landing the hog. It worked so well that the same technique was eventually employed with the F6F's.

The initial issue was the "bounce" from the gear struts.  They were redesigned to fix this.  The Brits were more than capable of landing the aircraft with both the bounce and their approach.

[Cthulhu]

Bodhi I was going to mention that there's an F4U at Alliance Airport here in Addison TX that I THINK is a C-Hog (it was in pieces when I saw it ). Do you know anything about it?

[artik]

Brits did several things for F4Us to make them useful for carrier operations:

1. They added a Malcolm Hood canopy that also allowed to rise the pilot position by 7 inches vastly improving visibility
2. They used the curved approach so the pilot had seen the deck all the time

Basically Brits considered F4Us safer then US pilots and it was their best option at that time. Finally it allowed US Navy to adopt the F4U as well.

[earl1937]

I am sure that most in here are aware that the reason that the F4U series of aircraft has a "gull" wing design because of the length of the prop blades.

(Image removed from quote.)

Why does the wing have so much dihedral in the wings?

Gosh a great many replies but as I had understood it by a engineer who worked at Vought, there not only was dihedral added, but "washout" in the wingtips was added to lower the stalling speed in a turn by 9 or 10 knots, which made it safer when using the 360 degree overhead approach when landing. At any rate, I am sure that they tested the thing to make sure the wing stalled from the fuselage out, rather than the other way around.

[bozon]

The technique used was a curved approach, which kept the deck in sight up until the last second as the pilot straightened out and flared for landing.

Eric Brown landed a mosquito on a carrier and eventually there was the TF.33 naval mossie. De Havilland had great plans for the mossie, but I doubt his original vision included deck ops, thus the mossie was absolutely not designed for this. Vought built what was probably the best US fighter of its time - that was their problem. Grumman that had a lot of experience with carrier planes realized that as log as their fighter is good enough, it is vitally important to make their F6F carrier friendly, instead of extracting a little more performance out of it.

For example, they sacrificed the ram air intakes that give the F4U its great deck speed in favor of drawing warmer air behind the engine in order to avoid icing and sucking in of sea spray. They used more wing area to lower the stall speed at the cost of drag (max speed). They built a higher cockpit and a slightly sloped cowling to improve over the nose visibility, again probably at the cost of added drag to the frame. They probably compromised on other things to make construction easier and built F6F at a crazy pace of 300 per month from a single factory - this means equipping a new squadron every two days...

[artik]

Eric Brown landed a mosquito on a carrier and eventually there was the TF.33 naval mossie. De Havilland had great plans for the mossie, but I doubt his original vision included deck ops, thus the mossie was absolutely not designed for this. Vought built what was probably the best US fighter of its time - that was their problem. Grumman that had a lot of experience with carrier planes realized that as log as their fighter is good enough, it is vitally important to make their F6F carrier friendly, instead of extracting a little more performance out of it.

For example, they sacrificed the ram air intakes that give the F4U its great deck speed in favor of drawing warmer air behind the engine in order to avoid icing and sucking in of sea spray. They used more wing area to lower the stall speed at the cost of drag (max speed). They built a higher cockpit and a slightly sloped cowling to improve over the nose visibility, again probably at the cost of added drag to the frame. They probably compromised on other things to make construction easier and built F6F at a crazy pace of 300 per month from a single factory - this means equipping a new squadron every two days...

Which reminds... The best performing plane isn't always the best plane for the situation: cost, maintenance, rigidness, production rates and many other "minor" factors are frequently more important than pure airframe performance. And the history is full of such examples:

Spitfire vs Hurricane, F4U vs F6F, Phantom vs MiG-21 and more...

[Gooss]

Earl,while this is an often quoted reason,the reall reason the corsair has bent wings is to help it lift it's skirt when it tries to cross a puddle!

Hogs are too sexy for your puddle.

HONK!
Gooss

[Devil 505]

Read Tom Blackburn's book.  VF-17 provided CAP support to carrier groups while operating from land fields.  They landed, refuled, and successfully defended the task groups without a single landing accident in an aircraft that was supposedly unfit for carrier ops. 

I used to have a desktop background of a VF-17 Birdcage making a successful carrier landing. Didn't the Jolly Rogers have these replaced with bubble tops before they deployed? I thought I also remembered reading they did a period of deployment off Bunker Hill before they ever even operated from the land bases, and it was entirely logistics (they were the only carrier-based Corsair squadron at the time) that led to them being sent ashore to begin with.

Indeed. Blackburn was adamant that the Corsair was carrier capable from the start. Despite the difficulties inherent in the F4U1, VF-17 suffered no unusual aircraft incidents during their carrier workups on the Bunker Hill. He was dumbfounded when was given the choice to transfer the Squad to the F6F or be transferred to forward land bases. Blackburn was so convinced that Corsair was the better fighter that he didn't hesitate to take the transfer and keep his F4Us.

[Bodhi]

Bodhi I was going to mention that there's an F4U at Alliance Airport here in Addison TX that I THINK is a C-Hog (it was in pieces when I saw it ). Do you know anything about it?

There are several sets of C-Hog wings around.  For early stuff, they don't seem to be as hard to come up with as the really early wings with the leading edge tanks.  I know where a couple sets of those are, but they are worth major bucks.

[Bodhi]

Gosh a great many replies but as I had understood it by a engineer who worked at Vought, there not only was dihedral added, but "washout" in the wingtips was added to lower the stalling speed in a turn by 9 or 10 knots, which made it safer when using the 360 degree overhead approach when landing. At any rate, I am sure that they tested the thing to make sure the wing stalled from the fuselage out, rather than the other way around.

They also added a vortex generator on the wing leading edge to help with the nasty departure characteristics on the stall.