Jolly Roger
Yes. I am a Pirate.
Flash said:
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Betcha didn't know this!!
- Thread starter Jolly Roger
- Start date
- Status
Jolly Roger said:
My understanding is, at the time, LCDR Ted Swartz, shot down the Mig while it was in the landing pattern at Kep. He was a former F-8 pilot who definitely wanted that prize Mig kill. Then again, what motivated fighter/attack pilot wouldn't?
Jolly Roger said:
Yup, knew it.
Didja know...the horizontal stabs on an F-111 and Tomcat are virtually identical. Also most cockpit gages to include wingspeep gage are almost identical.
Here's one:
The concept of a strike-fighter isn't really new. At the end of world War 2, they were putting more and more fighters on carrier decks. They had found that the corsairs and hellcats could carry an almost equivalent bombload as the helldivers and avengers, plus they had the dual advantages of only requiring one crewmember and they increased the number of fighters on board to fend off kamikazes. They even had fighter-bomber squadrons (VF(B), i think).
The concept of a strike-fighter isn't really new. At the end of world War 2, they were putting more and more fighters on carrier decks. They had found that the corsairs and hellcats could carry an almost equivalent bombload as the helldivers and avengers, plus they had the dual advantages of only requiring one crewmember and they increased the number of fighters on board to fend off kamikazes. They even had fighter-bomber squadrons (VF(B), i think).
Yes, and the Corsair was specifically given to the Marines in a ground attack role because the nose was too long for the pilot to see the LSO when landing on the carrier. Hence the nickname "Bent-Wing Ensign Eliminator!"
The Brits then discovered if they did a racetrack-style approach, they could keep the LSO in sight until just before they landed, and the US soon followed suit. And we're still flying that same pattern today!
The Brits then discovered if they did a racetrack-style approach, they could keep the LSO in sight until just before they landed, and the US soon followed suit. And we're still flying that same pattern today!
Flash said:
Both used cannons. During the Gulf War, A-10s were not able to designate targest for LGBs, they only had the Pave Penny pod that allowed them to view designated signals.
nittany03 said:
the corsair was given to the marines as a fighter. it wasn't til later that it's impressive ordance carrying ability was discovered. The navy had bought a lot of them based off of the prototype's performance, but then found that they were unsuitable for carrier use. the prototype corsair's cockpit was much farther forward, but BuAer decided it needed more guns, so they had to move the gas from the wings to in front of the fuselage, which resulted in the cockpit ending up much further aft. couple a limited view cockpit with bouncy landing gear and nasty stall characteristics, and you get the Ensign Eliminator.
I knew that they modified the pattern for the corsair, but is that actually where the racetrack came from? what kind of pattern where they flying around the boat before this?
XF4U-1
F4U-1
Jolly Roger
Yes. I am a Pirate.
bunk22 said:
Bunk, that quote that I quoted was from The Naval Air War in Vietnam, second edition, by Peter Mersky. My source could be wrong, so I will see if I can dig the circumstances out of a another book that I have packed away somewhere.
But really, all that matters is he killed one of the North's valuable MiGs and pilots.
Corsair MLGs
I've heard the reason for the gull wing was to keep from having to make the main landing gear too tall to prevent a large prop from striking the ground.
If you look at the pictures above...if it had a straight wing, the huge prop would have hit the ground.
Anyone lese heard this?
Looks like Simon can fly planes, too. Flies like a dream.
r/
G
I've heard the reason for the gull wing was to keep from having to make the main landing gear too tall to prevent a large prop from striking the ground.
If you look at the pictures above...if it had a straight wing, the huge prop would have hit the ground.
Anyone lese heard this?
Looks like Simon can fly planes, too. Flies like a dream.
r/
G
Attachments
Schnuggapup said:
I too have heard that exact same story.
The story I heard behind the gull wing wasn't so much to prevent prop strikes as landing gear failure (although I suppose that would cause a prop strike anyway 
). Apparently a longer landing gear would have been weaker during a trap. So the gull wing let them make a short, stubby gear which would handle the stresses for landing while retaining the big prop and big engine.
). Apparently a longer landing gear would have been weaker during a trap. So the gull wing let them make a short, stubby gear which would handle the stresses for landing while retaining the big prop and big engine.Vought wanted to hang the biggest prop they could off of the biggest engine available at the time, and in order for it to be able to operate off of carriers, it had to have short landing gear so it wouldn't bounce. The gull wing was the way their engineers handled the prop/landing gear problem. but the landing gear still had lots of problems, and these weren't fixed til later in the war. The folks at Republic had the same problem with the P-47, but they used telescoping landing gear. As you could guess, this type of solution wouldn't work to hot on a carrier deck.
Jolly Roger
Yes. I am a Pirate.
The gull wing also had some other unintended side effects. And, as a by product of the gull wing design, the wing also improved the aerodynamics of the intersection where the wing attaches to the fuselage, boosting the top speed of the aircraft. The wing design, also, produced a wicked stall characteristic in the early model (F4U-1). Just as stall speed was reached, the left wing tended to drop like a rock. It made the landing pattern dangerous for inexperienced pilots and made carrier landings almost impossible. That nasty stall characteristic is where it derived its nickname as the "ensign eliminator". This tendacy was fixed in the -1A model by adding a small spoiler to the leading edge of the starboard wing outside of the guns, which reduced the violence of accelerated jobs. The other problem with the F4U-1 was it's oleo landing gear. When the Corsair trapped, the stiff oleo landing gear would bottom out and the recoil would cause the U-Bird to bounce high into the air, which usually resulted in a wrecked airplane. This was fixed by altering the air/oil level in the oleo struts. This visibility problem was reduced by raising the seat eight inches. Most of the problems were worked out with simple solutions, and the corsair was given the go carquals again in 1944, where it past Bu Aero inspection.
The only full USN squadron to car qual the corsair before 1944 was VF-17 "The Jolly Rogers". They were scheduled to deploy on the USS Bunker Hill into the Pacific, but at the last minute they yanked from from the ship and put on shore assignment in the South Pacific were they became the highest scoring Corsair squadron in the war. Incidently they also operated off the Bunker Hill and the Saratoga for a few days during their deployment, again proving that the Corsair could be operated from a carrier deck.
The reason for their being pulled from the Bunker Hill was the logistics nightmare that supporting one F4U squadron in a deployed fleet full of F4Fs, so they were sent to the SoPac with the Marines, where there was logistics support.
If you want more info on the Corsair or VF-17, I suggest two books:
The Jolly Rogers, by John Blackburn ( the CO of VF-17)
Corsair, by Barrett Tillman
If you look in my profile that, me in the CAF's FG-1D based out of Dallas. It is truly a massive engine piston fighter! The the -1, -1A, -1C, -1D, and -2s do not have floors in them. Instead, their are two channels that the pilot puts his feet in with nothing but a cavern below. The cockpit is huge compared to that of a P-51, which I also had to chance sit in, I felt I had to put the thing on.
The only full USN squadron to car qual the corsair before 1944 was VF-17 "The Jolly Rogers". They were scheduled to deploy on the USS Bunker Hill into the Pacific, but at the last minute they yanked from from the ship and put on shore assignment in the South Pacific were they became the highest scoring Corsair squadron in the war. Incidently they also operated off the Bunker Hill and the Saratoga for a few days during their deployment, again proving that the Corsair could be operated from a carrier deck.
The reason for their being pulled from the Bunker Hill was the logistics nightmare that supporting one F4U squadron in a deployed fleet full of F4Fs, so they were sent to the SoPac with the Marines, where there was logistics support.
If you want more info on the Corsair or VF-17, I suggest two books:
The Jolly Rogers, by John Blackburn ( the CO of VF-17)
Corsair, by Barrett Tillman
If you look in my profile that, me in the CAF's FG-1D based out of Dallas. It is truly a massive engine piston fighter! The the -1, -1A, -1C, -1D, and -2s do not have floors in them. Instead, their are two channels that the pilot puts his feet in with nothing but a cavern below. The cockpit is huge compared to that of a P-51, which I also had to chance sit in, I felt I had to put the thing on.
- Status