Alternate History F4U

[KJ_Lesnick]

Far as I understand the F4U was based on a 1936 design that Chance Vought built which was based around the following

• Huge prop-diameter: Maximum thrust possible for horsepower
  
• Inverted Gull-Wings: Allow a short landing gear, provide adequate clearance for propeller, produce low interference effects
  
• Long nose for extra fuel tankage
  

I was thinking about other features in the timeframe that would have allowed similar effects

1. The large propeller was a non-negotiable factor
2. The F6F did have longer landing-gear legs despite carrier requirements
3. The wing could have been mounted higher on the frame with wing-fillets to deal with interference effects
4. The cockpit could have been moved forward, raised a little higher with the forward fuselage slanted up a little (it would allow good over the nose visibility, and would allow similar fuel volume and shorten the forward fuselage)
5. The rear fuselage could have been flattened out a little aft of the canopy allowing less drag in the back

[rickshaw]

Why don't you build a model of it, Kendra/Robynn?  That way we could see what you're talking about.

[jcf]

Why don't you build a model of it, Kendra/Robynn?  That way we could see what you're talking about.

Pretty simple really, she's describing the XF4U-1, shorter nose, cockpit further forward, with a faired mid-mounted wing, but if it was mid-fuse, ala the Buffalo, you've got the preferred 90° positioning for drag reduction and don't need a big fairing. However you'd have some long, spindly landing gear that you'd need to shorten as they retracted ... wait Kawanishi did that when they created the N1K1-J from the Kyofu, and the complicated gear was the main weak point of the aircraft. Vought encountered that problem thus the inverted gull wing, but, what the hell let's redesign the F4U to incorporate failed design elements rather than the logical design they actually used.



XF4U-1

[Captain Canada]

Didn't Baz build a straight-winged Corsair ?

[kerick]

The cockpit on the Corsair was pushed back to allow the most fuel to be stored over the wing, nearer the aircraft's CG. This provided for less change in the CG as fuel was consumed.
Now a long nose with the cockpit right behind the engine would look different!

[tahsin]

Hmm, to see whether the USN could have entered a "hasty" Zero-beater into the game rather than waiting until 1943 or something -instead of the "proper" version which wasn't proper enough until F4U-4? But the problem still to beat is Pearl Harbour itself. Leading to an aversion on part of the USN for the decisive Fleet Action; with such an "handicap" even the F-14 will not be much of an help...

[tahsin]

Which by the way would be irrelevant in the sense that the sole reason for the F4U winning that 1938 competition would "possibly" be that the USN was not easy with a monopoly situation as forced by R-2600 and V-1710. Rather logical for Vought to come up with a design that required an engine from the "same company" and USN declaring that a winner solely because it was the fastest and that was bound to happen because it was using "twice" the engine. It's all USN's fault to see a tremendous fighter aircraft in V-166. Which there was but that can hardly be the reason.

[KJ_Lesnick]

tahsin

What aircraft were involved the 1938 comptition

[tahsin]

Generally speaking, too much info I don't have anyway. A very short summary of those possibly could be improved Brewster Buffalo and Wildcats with a navalized P-39. Even the first of Vought's proposals must be with a "regular" radial, not as powerful as the R-2800.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Tahsin,

1. Was the R-2800 off limits?
2. Why didn't Grumman build a whole new aircraft instead of a modest F4F improvement?

[jcf]

1) It wasn't, it was just "new".

2) They did, the F5F was Grumman's response to the 1938 request for proposals. Bell's response was the XFL-1.

[tahsin]

Wannabe enthuasist and the actual knowledge. Joncarrfarrelly has the better answer -without any kind of reservations. All I might have been tempted to say is that the 1938 competition was finally over with the F8F while James Mitchener in one novel of his -Space I believe- contends the Corsair was so dangerous that when a very experienced Marine unit boarded a carrier for anti-Kamikaze operations they lost a quarter of their pilots in landing training.

[KJ_Lesnick]

JCF

It wasn't, it was just "new"

I'm curious if that disqualified it?  New is sometimes bad, not always though

They did, the F5F was Grumman's response to the 1938 request for proposals.

The F5F was hard to beat after all it had two engines, but I'm thinking about something: The diameter of the R-1820 was about the same as the R-2800 (actually the R-2800 were skinnier) and that means you'd have more than twice the surface area in having 2 x R-1820's rather than an R-2800.

While the square footage of both propellers is outright monstrous, I figure less cooling-drag would exist by having only one engine, and a longer airframe would improve fineness ratio, so you could bring down the necessary thrust to achieve the same result and the prop could be reduced somewhat in size -- it'd still be monstrous but potentially manageable.