• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Vought F4U Corsair designs and prototypes

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,227
Reaction score
713
frank said:
An F4U was tested with contra props as well.

You're kidding! I've never seen this before! (or maybe I'm getting old?).
I would LOVE to see pics of this, really...
 

Antonio

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,553
Reaction score
360
I would LOVE to see pics of this, really...

Here's the beast

Source: Les Avions Vought by Bernard Millot. Docavia Editions Lariviere.


It was an XF4U-4 that received the contrarotating props from Aero Products in June 1945. The evaluation show no increase in performance over the 4-bladed single prop so the later was prefered.
 

Attachments

  • XF4U-4 contrarotating props.jpg
    XF4U-4 contrarotating props.jpg
    422.4 KB · Views: 1,163

airman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
1,255
Reaction score
112
Website
zeef.com
pometablava said:
I would LOVE to see pics of this, really...

Here's the beast

Source: Les Avions Vought by Bernard Millot. Docavia Editions Lariviere.


It was an XF4U-4 that received the contrarotating props from Aero Products in June 1945. The evaluation show no increase in performance over the 4-bladed single prop so the later was prefered.
good, good !
 

elmayerle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,423
Reaction score
269
I caqn see why, if the contra-props offered no performance increase, they stayed with a single four-bladed prop. Going with a single prop would allow a more robust gearbox and at the same time reduce the number of components with potential to fail. That sounds like a win-win to me.
 

AeroFranz

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,335
Reaction score
284
The only advantage I would see would be improved carrier landing characteristics (less torque with power application).
 

Bill S

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
584
Reaction score
479
F4U-4 with vee tail.
Yes, the drawing says VEE TAIL

I debated which area to put this post in, as I did not find a topic
for the Corsair other than a request concerning the two seater.
Since the drawing is dated 10-3-45 I put it here. Mods can move
if need be.

Enjoy something a little different.

bill
 

Attachments

  • F4U-4_with_Vee_Tail.jpg
    F4U-4_with_Vee_Tail.jpg
    55.4 KB · Views: 1,008
  • F4U-4_with_Vee_Tail_Side_View.jpg
    F4U-4_with_Vee_Tail_Side_View.jpg
    78.9 KB · Views: 970
  • F4U-4_with_Vee_Tail_Front_View.jpg
    F4U-4_with_Vee_Tail_Front_View.jpg
    114.8 KB · Views: 945
  • F4U-4_with_Vee_Tail_Top_View.jpg
    F4U-4_with_Vee_Tail_Top_View.jpg
    120.6 KB · Views: 911

Bill S

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
584
Reaction score
479
XB-70 Guy said:
Way cool! Do you know what it's V-number is?

No V number on the drawing.
It is referred to as F4U-4 with vee tail
 

frank

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
617
Reaction score
19
I can't believe this could have been seriusly considered, due to the high torque involved during take-off, especially taking into account that the vertical fin had 2 degrees, IIRC, offset built in & also considering the amount of additional rudder that's applied during take-off to counter-act it. Now, if this was shown with the -4 that also tested the c/r prop, I'd feel a bit different..........
 

saturncanuck

Any landing you can walk away from, is a good one.
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
299
Reaction score
10
Website
www.aerofile.ca
pometablava said:
I would LOVE to see pics of this, really...

Here's the beast

Source: Les Avions Vought by Bernard Millot. Docavia Editions Lariviere.


It was an XF4U-4 that received the contrarotating props from Aero Products in June 1945. The evaluation show no increase in performance over the 4-bladed single prop so the later was prefered.

Wow, what a beast!
 

Antonio

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,553
Reaction score
360
Probably V-166 something... V-166B was the XF4U-1.

...or probably something totally different

Some Corsair design numbers:

VS-317 Modifications on XF4U-1
VS-321 Modifications on F4U-1
VS-323 F4U-1 with Wright R-3350 engine
VS-324 Modifications on F4U-1
VS-325 Modifications on F4U-1
VS-331 XF4U-3
V-334 F4U-4 (possible, not sure)
V-336 F4U-1WM (F4U-1 with P&W R-4360 Wasp Major)
V-342 F4U with E engine
V-351 F4U-5
V-354 F4U two seat advanced trainer
V-361 F4U-5 variant
V-376 F4U for Perú

Source: Les Avions Vought. Bernat Millot. Docavia #20
 

Bill S

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
584
Reaction score
479
XB-70 Guy said:
Probably V-166 something... V-166B was the XF4U-1.

Some of the items I have found were just designer general arrangements
and do not look like they progressed far enough to get V or VS numbers.
as their are no detail drawings of parts or further detail.
 

airman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
1,255
Reaction score
112
Website
zeef.com
from "The Corsair and other Aeroplanes Vought " -
Aviation Heritage Books -1977
 

Attachments

  • corsair.jpg
    corsair.jpg
    31.2 KB · Views: 281

Bill S

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
584
Reaction score
479
XF4U-3

XF4U-3 with a R-2800-16 engine, exhaust driven turbo supercharger and four bladed propeller.
These drawings show inboard profile, induction system and exhaust system.


VAHF archives.


bill
 

Attachments

  • VS-2539x-XF4U-3-Exhaust-System.jpg
    VS-2539x-XF4U-3-Exhaust-System.jpg
    57.5 KB · Views: 226
  • VS-2539x-XF4U-3-Induction-System.jpg
    VS-2539x-XF4U-3-Induction-System.jpg
    80.4 KB · Views: 299
  • VS-25390-XF4U-3-Inboard-Profile-Power-Plant.jpg
    VS-25390-XF4U-3-Inboard-Profile-Power-Plant.jpg
    81.2 KB · Views: 322

Bill S

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
584
Reaction score
479
Still have not found a V number for this, pretty sure that it did not
progress far enough to become a fully funded project. I did see
reference in Hosper's notes that the Navy was asking for a VEE tail
to be looked at for the F4U.


bill

Bill S said:
XB-70 Guy said:
Way cool! Do you know what it's V-number is?

No V number on the drawing.
It is referred to as F4U-4 with vee tail
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
3,217
Reaction score
971
Website
beyondthesprues.com
Re: XF4U-3

Bill S said:
XF4U-3 with a R-2800-16 engine, exhaust driven turbo supercharger and four bladed propeller.
These drawings show inboard profile, induction system and exhaust system.


More
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    119.5 KB · Views: 908
  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    34.9 KB · Views: 892
  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    17.7 KB · Views: 903

KJ_Lesnick

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,043
Reaction score
44
Pometablava

I'm surprised the contrarotating prop did nothing useful: I'd have figured by neutralizing the tangential forces from the prop, you'd add some extra thrust. Still, I suppose the particulars of the propellers and the weight of the new gearing system would play a role too


Bill S

The F4U with a V-tail might not have been such a bad idea. One of the early problems with the plane had to do with spin recovery: The cause was at least partially due to the gull-wing blanking the elevator authority. These surfaces were out of the path of the airflow off the gull wing and would have worked well.

Admittedly the F4U had other problems however owing to asymmetric stalls (occurred at low speed with little warning; fixed with a stall strip), stalls that presented with little warning. and a proclivity to bounce badly on landing
 
C

CostasTT

Guest
For carrier duty, the stall characteristics, U/C bounce and prop torque, especially during the takeoff and wave-off phases were serious shortcomings. The first two were eventually fixed, but the last one was never satisfactorily addressed. A contraprop would have solved it, but then again other considerations led to a decision against its adoption.
 

toura

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
1,203
Reaction score
112
Hi all

From the Docavia book "les avions Vought"

F4U-4XB with tanks at the end of the wings
 

Attachments

  • test.jpg
    test.jpg
    126.3 KB · Views: 847

Cy-27

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
595
Reaction score
273
The F4U-4XB with wing tip tanks photo appears along with the XF4U-4 counter-rotating photo from an earlier post in Barrett Tillman's "Corsair - The F4U in World War II and Korea" (PSL 1979) ISBN 0850594278. This book is probably easier to obtain secondhand than the than the "Les Avions Vought" Docavia title.

Other variants illustrated include the pressurised Vought-Sikorsky Model VS-326, the Goodyear XF2G-1 interceptor and the two-seat F4U-1 trainer.
 

KJ_Lesnick

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,043
Reaction score
44
CostasTT


For carrier duty, the stall characteristics, U/C bounce and prop torque, especially during the takeoff and wave-off phases were serious shortcomings.
While I understand why the torque issue was so serious -- it had a huge prop to maximize thrust; to some degree I understand the asymmetry in stall.

I am curious as to how they were able to reduce the spin characteristics and why the undercarriage bounced the aircraft so much on landing? The landing gears didn't look all that unusual (and if anything I'd have though the F6F would have made more trouble).
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,304
Reaction score
1,321
In "Wings Of The Navy" by Eric Brown, he mentions the bouncing problems as a result
of overly stiff oleos, but the more serious handicap was the often occuring torque stall
during landing.
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,227
Reaction score
713
Jemiba said:
the more serious handicap was the often occuring torque stall during landing.

It can't have happened too often. I guess if it had been such a repeated issue a redesign of the tail might have fixed that.
 
C

CostasTT

Guest
Although the stall strip fixed the assymetric stall on wave-off problem, there was still the massive torque of the prop, which could still cause problems in case power was applied suddenly, and that's why Corsairs are seen landing with right rudder applied.
 

famvburg

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
345
Reaction score
19
Most, if not all high-powered propeller airplanes have that torque problem. Even a T-6/SNJ with only 600 HP will bite you if power is applied too abruptly at low airspeed.
 

KJ_Lesnick

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,043
Reaction score
44
Jemiba


In "Wings Of The Navy" by Eric Brown, he mentions the bouncing problems as a resultof overly stiff oleos
Thank you.


BTW: If I may ask, why were the oleo's designed so stiffly? It may sound like a silly question but other fighters such as the F5F (designed for the same mission actually as the F4U except with twi engines) and the F6F were all carrier based contemporaries (give or take a few years) and they didn't have any problems far as I know.






famvburg


I have a feeling that the issue wasn't so much the torque problem but it's degree. The F4U had a huge prop and powerful engines which would have made things worse
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,304
Reaction score
1,321
KJ_Lesnick said:
...why were the oleo's designed so stiffly?

Sorry, there's no reason given for the why . Not a silly question, but one, that may be difficult to answer.
I would expect it to be similar to other problems : A new landing gear needed a new oleo and although not
a new technologyy at all, there was a relatively small kink, that together with other characteristics, like
position of the main gear legs and so on, led to it being prone to bouncing.
Or perhaps the oleos were precisely produced as ordered, but the speciications were wrong ? Things like that
still today result in endless in accusations between companies....
 

famvburg

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
345
Reaction score
19
Yes, the Corsair had a huge prop and powerful engine. So did the Hellcat and so did the Bearcat. IIRC, the Hellcat used the same basic prop and did use the same basic engine as well. Regarding the Corsair's struts, the "fix" for the Corsair was to deflate the oleos. That is why the majority of pics show them flat. The majority of plastic models are wrong. The oleos are serviced to enough pressure to assure strut extension after takeoff. That's how the "built-in bounce" was cured. As a sidenote, the Skyraider uses the same main gear as the Corsair.
 

AeroFranz

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,335
Reaction score
284
Good account of Hellcat and Corsair pros and cons in Corky Meyer's Flight Journal. at one point both aircraft were evaluated in order to cross-pollinate and improve both. i'll have to dig that out and write a summary.
 

famvburg

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
345
Reaction score
19
ISTR the Hellcat was a very docile airplane, a low-experience pilot could fly it with little problem.
 

KJ_Lesnick

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,043
Reaction score
44
Jemiba


Sorry, there's no reason given for the why .
Worth a shot...


Not a silly question, but one, that may be difficult to answer.
Yeah, I don't know where I'd go to ask


I would expect it to be similar to other problems : A new landing gear needed a new oleo and although not
a new technologyy at all, there was a relatively small kink, that together with other characteristics, like
position of the main gear legs and so on, led to it being prone to bouncing.
Entirely possible, and now that I think about it, as the plane was designed some changes might have been made -- probably loads of them


Or perhaps the oleos were precisely produced as ordered, but the speciications were wrong ?
Or they miscalculated a variable




BTW: Would one of the warbirds forums have a possible answer? They tend to know all sorts of obscure things about aircraft.
 

Kartek

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Dec 11, 2013
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Don't know much about the Corsair but since it was to go to the USMC and thier land bases perhaps the stiff suspension was to help deal with field landings.
 

AeroFranz

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,335
Reaction score
284
I apologise for not having looked up the answer yet, my copy of Corky Meyer's book is stashed in a box somewhere. My recollection was that Grumman was given a Corsair to try to emulate the excellent aileron response of the Corsair and Vought was given a Hellcat to improve upon the stall and bounce characteristics of the F4U. IIRC, the former was solved by the installation of a stall strip (a paliative, really), and the latter was cured by varying the characteristics of the oleos.
 

Bill Walker

Per Ardua ad Nauseum
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
482
Reaction score
13
Website
rwrwalker.ca
Bouncing is a combination of the rebound of the oleo and the effect this has on the flying surfaces. Geometry of the gear determines how the plane bounces: level, or with the nose dropping or with the nose rising during the bounce. Tail wheel aircraft have the main gear ahead of the c.g., so a bounce usually raises the nose. Nose rising can increase lift, just when you are trying to come down. It also will increase drag, which eventually bleeds off speed and decreases lift, after you are 10 feet back in the air. Usually the first bounce is a nuisance, the second or third bounce may kill you.

Most high powered prop airplanes can get into a dead zone after the first bounce. You are 10 feet off the ground, and airspeed has bled off, reducing the effectiveness of the controls. Now rapidly open the throttle (because you realize you are dropping rapidly) and you may not be able to counter the torque and p-stream effects. The result, at best, can be an uncontrolled descent with high bank angle and/or yaw angle. At worst, it could be a power on stall at low very altitude, resulting in a rapid 180 degrees of roll, high rate of sink, and a very unpleasant encounter with the ground.

The proper response to a bounce seems a little counter-intuitive, and takes some training and a steady head. After the first bounce you abandon the landing. Slowly open the throttle, and apply some forward stick to keep the fuselage level and allow speed to build up. When you can determine that the elevator, rudder and ailerons are effective, gradually add more power. Fly away, go around, and try again.
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,227
Reaction score
713
AeroFranz said:
I apologise for not having looked up the answer yet, my copy of Corky Meyer's book is stashed in a box somewhere. My recollection was that Grumman was given a Corsair to try to emulate the excellent aileron response of the Corsair and Vought was given a Hellcat to improve upon the stall and bounce characteristics of the F4U. IIRC, the former was solved by the installation of a stall strip (a paliative, really), and the latter was cured by varying the characteristics of the oleos.

Fascinating the things that companies are asked to do in times of war... trying to improve the competition's aircraft!
 

AeroFranz

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,335
Reaction score
284
Ok, I dug out the Flight Journal.


The evaluations took place between 9 Sept and 8 Nov. 1943. The Navy wanted Grumman to improve the Hellcat's speed by 20kts (supposedly to cure the Hellcat's inferior speed compared to the F4U) and improve aileron controls. Vought was ordered to improve cockpit layout, visibility, stall characteristics and landing gear oleos.


Vought extended the tail-wheel oleo strut by seven inches to improve taxi visibility. The Hellcat copied ailerons made to the same contour as the Corsair, but wasn't able to duplicate its rolling performance until the introduction of NACA spring tab ailerons.
Turns out in formation flights, the Corsair would read 18 mph faster - so the perceived difference in performance was actually just a sensor calibration issue.


The Corsair's new landing gear strut was modified by Grumman who made it comparable to the Hellcat's. As far as I know, F4U stalls remained nastier than the Hellcat's.
 
C

CostasTT

Guest
Stargazer2006 said:
AeroFranz said:
I apologise for not having looked up the answer yet, my copy of Corky Meyer's book is stashed in a box somewhere. My recollection was that Grumman was given a Corsair to try to emulate the excellent aileron response of the Corsair and Vought was given a Hellcat to improve upon the stall and bounce characteristics of the F4U. IIRC, the former was solved by the installation of a stall strip (a paliative, really), and the latter was cured by varying the characteristics of the oleos.

Fascinating the things that companies are asked to do in times of war... trying to improve the competition's aircraft!

Even more, they would give up their secrets to their peacetime competitors, like Boeing did with the B-29 production pool.
 

Similar threads

Top