F4U Wing

[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.



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

[bozon]

Because having the center of lift so low is not a good idea.

Interesting the the f6f and p47 managed to keep their prop off the ground without bending the wings. All these brilliant design features is what made the f4u a second fiddle to the f6f. Sometimes simple is just better.

[artik]

The inverted part of the "Gull" has a negative stability. So on the rest of the more dihedral is applied to improve the roll stability

[earl1937]

The inverted part of the "Gull" has a negative stability. So on the rest of the more dihedral is applied to improve the roll stability

Correct!

[Muzzy]

Questions:

1. I recall reading somewhere that the gull wing gave the F4U better aerodynamic qualities than the F6F. Does this account for the hog's better energy retention and higher speed?

2. Does the F6F use the same size propeller as the Hog?

[morfiend]

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.)

 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!



   

[glzsqd]

The biggest reason for the F4Us excellent energy retention is the fact the airframe is very stream lined. The reason the wings are gulled was because they wanted to keep a sleek aerodynamic profile while having a massive prop.

The F6f was actually the initial insurance contract, however Vought's set backs due to lost prototypes coupled with the f6f rapid development led to the F6F getting to the combat zones first.

[Saxman]

The F6f was actually the initial insurance contract, however Vought's set backs due to lost prototypes coupled with the f6f rapid development led to the F6F getting to the combat zones first.

First combat of the F4U-1 was February, 1943. First combat of the F6F-3 (first production version) wasn't until 1 September that year. So the Corsair beat it by a good 6+ months.

[Cthulhu]

First combat of the F4U-1 was February, 1943. First combat of the F6F-3 (first production version) wasn't until 1 September that year. So the Corsair beat it by a good 6+ months.

You beat me to it. 

The early F4U's had atrocious landing characteristics at the back of the boat. That's why the Navy released them to the Marines.

[bozon]

First combat of the F4U-1 was February, 1943. First combat of the F6F-3 (first production version) wasn't until 1 September that year. So the Corsair beat it by a good 6+ months.

Except Vought forgot that they were supposed to be building a carrier plane. Thus a 2 years head start was not enough, Grumman filled the Navy with 300 F6Fs per month and the F6F became the ace maker instead of the F4U. With all due respect to the marines, land based operations were limited. The big aerial action happened off the decks of the carriers.

[Muzzy]

Except Vought forgot that they were supposed to be building a carrier plane. Thus a 2 years head start was not enough, Grumman filled the Navy with 300 F6Fs per month and the F6F became the ace maker instead of the F4U. With all due respect to the marines, land based operations were limited. The big aerial action happened off the decks of the carriers.

I submit that major naval actions were far fewer and therefore aerial kill opportunities less frequent aboard CV's than if you were flying out of Cactus and facing the IJNAF and IJAAF every dang day.

[Saxman]

Except Vought forgot that they were supposed to be building a carrier plane. Thus a 2 years head start was not enough, Grumman filled the Navy with 300 F6Fs per month and the F6F became the ace maker instead of the F4U. With all due respect to the marines, land based operations were limited. The big aerial action happened off the decks of the carriers.

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).

[branch37]

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. 

[Saxman]

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.

[glzsqd]

First combat of the F4U-1 was February, 1943. First combat of the F6F-3 (first production version) wasn't until 1 September that year. So the Corsair beat it by a good 6+ months.

My mistake.
I'm pretty sure the British were the first to use the -1s successfully as carrier born fighters.