Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: earl1937 on June 09, 2014, 08:43:51 AM
-
:airplane: 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.
(http://i1120.photobucket.com/albums/l488/05263739/f4u.jpg)
Why does the wing have so much dihedral in the wings?
-
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.
-
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
-
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
:airplane: Correct!
-
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?
-
:airplane: 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.
(http://i1120.photobucket.com/albums/l488/05263739/f4u.jpg)
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!
:salute
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I stand corrected.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
:airplane: 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.
(http://i1120.photobucket.com/albums/l488/05263739/f4u.jpg)
Why does the wing have so much dihedral in the wings?
:airplane: :banana: 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.
-
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...
-
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...
-
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
-
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 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.
-
:airplane: :banana: 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.
-
I guess this is the right thread for this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4aPk4fledU
-
I must agree with General Rall... With all the manual work needed to just operate the aircraft I'm amazed the US pilots found the time to fight!
-
Were all the big radial US rides that complicated to operate?
By comparison the 109G staring procedure is mostly checking that everything works before pulling the starter clutch...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Sz5t-m9IOE
-
Were all the big radial US rides that complicated to operate?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Sz5t-m9IOE
No
I must agree with General Rall... With all the manual work needed to just operate the aircraft I'm amazed the US pilots found the time to fight!
Who lost the war?
-
No
So it was just the F4U? I find that hard to believe.
Who lost the war?
You don't even know that? :aok
-
You don't even know that? :aok
You were busy looking in the wrong direction and missed the point.
-
You were busy looking in the wrong direction and missed the point.
No I don't think so... Your point was trying to deflect the issue by inserting a nationalistic bull**** red herring diversionary tactic that has nothing to do with aircraft performance or cockpit workload.
-
I'm amazed the US pilots found the time to fight!
You "inserted the nationalistic BS" trying to make a limp comparison based on no personal experience and still miss the point.
-
Great POST. And when we have one for German aircraft I'm sure GScholz will be an informative source as always.
So what F4u "combat" cockpit procedures did the pilots have to go through pre\during engagement? Didn't F4u engage the Luft a few times? How did that turn out for the overly cockpit complexity taxed F4u pilots?
My father flew cargo in Beech 18. I rode right seat a few times. He had a check list memorized along with sub actions if anything didn't respond correctly from the two radials or any system in the plane. Walk around check, Pre flight cockpit, pre takoff taxi and hold, takeoff, climb out, in destination flight, landing, taxi to the ramp, and shutdown. You could almost say "Rap Music" got it's start with memorized pilot check lists. Especially the warmup then cooling management for radials.
You should have heard him when he was working on his jet ticket. At which time he had is multi engine ticket along with multi engine commercial instructor ticket.
So how did all of the real world pilots in this post ever get their rides off the ground with all of the cockpit management procedures they were saddled with? Becoming a pilot is a self eliminating process. If you cannot excel at the complex multitasking of cockpit management, you don't get your ticket to fly.
So who won WW2...............
-
You "inserted the nationalistic BS" trying to make a limp comparison based on no personal experience and still miss the point.
Actually I was paraphrasing a German ace who flew most of the captured allied rides in addition to the German aircraft. I now see I wrongly attributed the quote to Rall, when it was in fact Stigler:
"I didn't like the Thunderbolt. It was too big. The cockpit was immense and unfamiliar. After so many hours in the snug confines of the [Me-109], everything felt out of reach and too far away from the pilot. Although the P-51 was a fine airplane to fly…it too was disconcerting. With all those levers, controls and switches in the cockpit, I'm surprised [American] pilots could find the time to fight."
I don't have real life experience in any WWII aircraft, but I read about those who do.
-
Great POST. And when we have one for German aircraft I'm sure GScholz will be an informative source as always.
So what F4u "combat" cockpit procedures did the pilots have to go through pre\during engagement? Didn't F4u engage the Luft a few times? How did that turn out for the overly cockpit complexity taxed F4u pilots?
My father flew cargo in Beech 18. I rode right seat a few times. He had a check list memorized along with sub actions if anything didn't respond correctly from the two radials or any system in the plane... (snip)
That's interesting, since the Germans didn't use checklists at all. They believed in automation.
-
So who won WW2...............
The P-51 according to American television...
-
I see now it was a mistake of me to mention the 109 or anything non-American in this context, you guys only get your stars and stripes panties in a twist and come out with purses swinging. Even if it isn't as automated as the German rides the P-51 will do nicely for a comparison. In the P-51 the pilot does not need to manually adjust the cooling flaps. In the P-51 the pilot does not need to manually operate the blower. In the P-51 the pilot does not need to manually adjust the inter-cooler. The F4U's engine cannot have been designed for use in fighters!
-
No need to get in such a defensive crouch. No one is attacking you. Just asking questions and you are getting wound up and slinging the thinly vailed "nationalistic" insults.
-
Perhaps you're seeing insults where there are none.
-
That's interesting, since the Germans didn't use checklists at all.
I trust that's an exaggeration.
If not, it might explain their dreadful accident record!
- oldman
-
I was surprised at that as well, and for the more complicated types like the Ju 88 I'm positive it lead to an increase in accident rate.
That said the USAAF and USN started including rudimentary checklists only in 1937... By 1945 they were getting pretty comprehensive.
-
I was surprised at that as well, and for the more complicated types like the Ju 88 I'm positive it lead to an increase in accident rate.
That said the USAAF and USN started including rudimentary checklists only in 1937... By 1945 they were getting pretty comprehensive.
That's a good point; the more complex the aircraft/systems, the more need for checklists and usage to prevent inadvertent omissions and the subsequent accident potential.
-
That's a good point; the more complex the aircraft/systems, the more need for checklists and usage to prevent inadvertent omissions and the subsequent accident potential.
Indeed, but I'm still shocked at the complexity and pilot workload of the F4U. That engine needs a flight engineer.
-
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...
At peak production rates, Grumman was rolling out over 600 Hellcats a month, along with F7Fs and F8Fs. They pushed out an average of 25 F6Fs each work day from October '44 thru April of '45. They were delivering Hellcats so fast, the Navy asked them to slow production as they had more than they could use. The reserve of Hellcats built up in the Pacific was enough that planes with only moderate damage were just jettisoned. Grumman laid off 1,000 workers in response and ended the Saturday shift. The work force, becoming nervous, pushed out even more planes the next month. Grumman laid off another 1,000 workers. The following month, they set a record of 656 aircraft delivered from one facility. This record still stands for an American aircraft manufacturer. F4U deliveries, Vought and Goodyear combined, never came close to what Grumman was producing. To this very day, Grumman's production methods are still studied for their incredible efficiency.
Grumman designed their aircraft for ease of flying around the boat, and ease of manufacturing. Most of the improvements seen in the F6F-5 were introduced gradually into F6F-3 production. Late block F6F-3s were 10 mph faster than early -3s. There were drag improvements and changes to to simplify manufacture. The aero improvements reduced drag enough to make the F6F-5 nearly as fast as the F4U-1D at critical altitude (409 mph at 21,600 ft. for F6F-5 and 413 mph at 20,400 ft. for the F4U-1D, with the Hellcat being slightly faster than the F4U at 25,000 ft).
-
To this very day, Grumman's production methods are still studied for their incredible efficiency.
Grumman designed their aircraft for ease of flying around the boat, and ease of manufacturing. Most of the improvements seen in the F6F-5 were introduced gradually into F6F-3 production. Late block F6F-3s were 10 mph faster than early -3s. There were drag improvements and changes to to simplify manufacture. The aero improvements reduced drag enough to make the F6F-5 nearly as fast as the F4U-1D at critical altitude (409 mph at 21,600 ft. for F6F-5 and 413 mph at 20,400 ft. for the F4U-1D, with the Hellcat being slightly faster than the F4U at 25,000 ft).
I think the main reason that Grumman was so efficient owed a lot to their simplified manufacturing. Leroy Grumman and Jake Swirbul had figured out manufacturing and design by the time they got to the Hellcat. That knowledge was paramount to the production at Grumman, ie. simplicity of manufacture. Vought never figured that out, ever.
I think it's interesting how you mention the enhancements on the Hellcat to make it faster. One of the things I always found interesting were the button head rivets aft of the critical area of smoothness. Their conversion to countersunk rivets and dimpled skins (and formers) would have contributed greatly to overall speed, but to do so was to slow down production. Interesting facts from the USN show some of the pilots buying every bit of shoe polish on a carrier so they could polish their aircraft and gain speed.
-
Indeed, but I'm still shocked at the complexity and pilot workload of the F4U. That engine needs a flight engineer.
Nothing a well trained, competent pilot can't handle.
-
I must agree with General Rall... With all the manual work needed to just operate the aircraft I'm amazed the US pilots found the time to fight!
It isn't all that busy.... Throttle, mixture and blower manipulation were required for normal operation. Combat operation was simple enough. Mixture to auto-rich, blower according to altitude, prop to max rpm and throttle as needed. I believe that the intercooler flap was automatic in later builds. Bodhi can better talk to that.
In 1943, Leroy Grumman and Bob Hall visited Great Britain and had the opportunity to fly a captured FW 190A. Both men were very impressed with the automatic engine management system. Upon returning to Bethpage, Grumman ordered the Engineering department to design a similar system. The F8F-1 was built with much simplified engine control system, and the F8F-2 introduced the full blown AEC (automatic engine control). With that, Grumman had built what most who have flown it, call the ultimate prop fighter.
-
I think the main reason that Grumman was so efficient owed a lot to their simplified manufacturing. Leroy Grumman and Jake Swirbul had figured out manufacturing and design by the time they got to the Hellcat. That knowledge was paramount to the production at Grumman, ie. simplicity of manufacture. Vought never figured that out, ever.
I think it's interesting how you mention the enhancements on the Hellcat to make it faster. One of the things I always found interesting were the button head rivets aft of the critical area of smoothness. Their conversion to countersunk rivets and dimpled skins (and formers) would have contributed greatly to overall speed, but to do so was to slow down production. Interesting facts from the USN show some of the pilots buying every bit of shoe polish on a carrier so they could polish their aircraft and gain speed.
Simoniz paste wax was also in demand. Pilots and maintenance guys would write home asking for automotive paste wax. Paraffin was also used to fill seams and gaps. I know an former Plane Captain, who bought up every box of paraffin he could find in San Diego before his squadron deployed.
-
Ya know WW, in a way, the wax ideas were great, but I have to wonder how they liked that tropical heat! Still, more examples of great improvisation from our people.
-
It dont seems more complicated than other constant-speed propeller equipped plane. A pilot had learned how to handle his engine well before he went to combat.
In terms of technology dough, the germans were bretty far ahed of the rest of the counties. Fuel injection and "kommandogerät" made it a lot easier for the pilot. But obviosly it didnt had a major impact on the air war, a trained pilot could still fight as well without those systems.
-
Simoniz paste wax was also in demand. Pilots and maintenance guys would write home asking for automotive paste wax. Paraffin was also used to fill seams and gaps. I know an former Plane Captain, who bought up every box of paraffin he could find in San Diego before his squadron deployed.
Wide,as a kid I'd heard stories about this,seemed to be common among most the airforces. I had thought I was being handed a load of you know what in a ruse to get me to wax Dad's car more often..... :noid
They even told me all those hotrods running around could thank the ground crews for those little speed things they came up with in an effort to gain just a couple extra MPH for their pilot!
I guess it was all horse pucky afterall! :aok
:salute
-
It isn't all that busy.... Throttle, mixture and blower manipulation were required for normal operation. Combat operation was simple enough. Mixture to auto-rich, blower according to altitude, prop to max rpm and throttle as needed. I believe that the intercooler flap was automatic in later builds. Bodhi can better talk to that.
In 1943, Leroy Grumman and Bob Hall visited Great Britain and had the opportunity to fly a captured FW 190A. Both men were very impressed with the automatic engine management system. Upon returning to Bethpage, Grumman ordered the Engineering department to design a similar system. The F8F-1 was built with much simplified engine control system, and the F8F-2 introduced the full blown AEC (automatic engine control). With that, Grumman had built what most who have flown it, call the ultimate prop fighter.
I wish we could get the Bearcat as a perk ride. It's the ultimate late-war monster.
-
It dont seems more complicated than other constant-speed propeller equipped plane. A pilot had learned how to handle his engine well before he went to combat.
In terms of technology dough, the germans were bretty far ahed of the rest of the counties. Fuel injection and "kommandogerät" made it a lot easier for the pilot. But obviosly it didnt had a major impact on the air war, a trained pilot could still fight as well without those systems.
It's a lot more complicated than the Merlin engine. I don't know about the Allison. The impact the German HOTAS systems had on the air war is probably not measurable in any meaningful way, but I doubt a late-war Luftwaffe greenhorn with 10 hours in trainers could operate an F4U in combat. Perhaps the fact that the Luftwaffe still existed at all in late-1944 and 1945 is the best testament to the ease of operation of a 109 or 190.
-
Bodhi, I was under the impression that all major air forces in WWII waxed and polished their fighters to get more speed out of them. Was it not normal in the USAAF/USN?
-
At least in the PTO with the way the supply lines were I can't imagine land-based birds having ready access to it. All you need to do is look at the condition those Marine Corsairs were in even late in the war. They couldn't even get enough paint to keep them touched up.
-
Yeah, I can't imagine the RAF or Luftwaffe waxing and polishing their AC in North-Africa. Wax would just melt in that heat anyways...
-
It's a lot more complicated than the Merlin engine. I don't know about the Allison. The impact the German HOTAS systems had on the air war is probably not measurable in any meaningful way, but I doubt a late-war Luftwaffe greenhorn with 10 hours in trainers could operate an F4U in combat. Perhaps the fact that the Luftwaffe still existed at all in late-1944 and 1945 is the best testament to the ease of operation of a 109 or 190.
If u had 2 equal greenhorns in 2 equal plane and one of them had a engine managment system the pilot in that plane would probably win. He will have more situation awarness and most likely a plane that runs better than the guy with manual controls. There are surley individual fights where this have been a big factor to the outcome but it would be impossible to find evidence for it.
What i belive could be a bigger problem in the F4U than the engine is the stall caracteristics. That is a pretty nasty stall and it can easilly end up in a spin. Compare to the P-47 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y3v1-WMJS8 That stalls like a cessna, i slight drop and u are flying again.