F4U-5 Corsair Superprop!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ก.พ. 2024
- Let's take a look at the fastest variant of the F4U Corsair, the awesome Dash 5!. We will see what makes it so fast, and how it stacks up against the might Hawker Sea Fury.
Please support this channel: / gregsairplanesandautom...
Paypal: mistydawne2010@yahoo.com
Video correction, the Dash 5's G limit is normally 7.5Gs. The nightfighter variant has the 6.5G limit. - ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
![ไหล่อ่อน (Soft Shoulder) - Atom ชนกันต์ [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HUWl53msBQY/mqdefault.jpg)
No one does an warbird deep dive better than greg, no plane more worthy of one than the Corsair
I’m a retired airline pilot and when I was learning to fly in 1961 I remember a group of F4 U s rotting at Tamiami airport Had I bought one I’d be rich now but at 16 that would not have been possible
I flew out of new Tamiami airport back in 73. I wonder if they're both the same? Do you remember the air traffic controllers saying "report over Krome"?
Carbon fiber is the new fiberglass.
It must be possible to make an electric scale model big enough to sit in and qualify as ultralight.
Amazing tale chum
You are also drunk kind sir. Thankyou for your service.
@@jtjames79 There is one.
I have degrees in applied psychology and industrial psychology which are geared toward human factors. I remember one story I was told in class, which may be apocryphal, about the placement of the flap lever and ejection seat lever next to each other in the early F-104 Starfighters. Supposedly this resulted in at least one accidental ejection during takeoff. If nothing else, the idea impressed upon me the importance of getting the cockpit layout right. This equally applies to repair and maintenance. I recall a tragic incident when I was an Air Force Major that cost two lives. An elevator control line was hooked up backwards because access to it was through a blind hole and done by feel. The T.O. (Technical Order) contained an error and the follow-on inspection was improperly done. The pilot also failed to conduct an adequate system check during pre-flight and only discovered he had a control problem during his takeoff roll. He was unable to correct it, crashed, and was killed. The subsequent investigation led to the planned court-martial of the mechanic. However, he committed suicide out of grief before the board could meet. Yes, human factors is far more important than many people realize.
Court martial the asshole who designed that.
Excellent post.
thanks for the story. I was CH-47 (Chinook) mechanic, not flight crew, and I was always mindful of the serious implications of making a mistake. I wasn't frozen to inaction but very deliberate and confident in my actions.
@@sjb3460I can appreciate that. My Dad was a B-29 engine mechanic.
I'd love to see a series on the P-40 family.
I do have a P-40 video talking about the different engines in it.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Yes, I've watched that & appreciate it. However, I think the aircraft needs something like your P-47 series to really do it justice. The lengthy production run, widespread useage, and evolution of the airframe from the XP-37 through the XP-40Q is kind of begging for an full-depth dive.
@@olpaint71 I agree, the P-40 is far too under appreciated, and is wrongly deemed "obsolete". At lower altitudes, it's superior to the P-47 in nearly every way, and is a tough airplane much like the P-47 (not quite as tough though). And in 1942 it was documented that the pilots were pushing P-51 and P-40 Allison engines to 72-75" manifold pressure, putting out more than 1800HP at low altitudes. Allison confirmed this in engine tests, and ran the engine for 20min continuously without damage. But, neither the P-51 nor P-40 were flight tested like this that I'm aware of. the P-51A was getting up to 415mph at 1400HP at 5k ft, and the P-40 was something like 335mph at 5k ft on only 1000HP. I've heard somewhere (don't remember where unfortunately), that late model P-40N with 2200HP Allisons were pushing 410mph at low altitudes. I have not run the numbers yet like Greg has, but I plan to. P-40 is often criticized as it's compared to the A6M Zero, but almost everything sucks compared to the Zero in terms of maneuverability. But the P-40 was faster, and later models could climb with it, had a higher ceiling, and performed better at high speed. But against other non-Japanese fighters is was capable. Nobody claims the Me109 was obsolete, yet the P-40 could out turn it, and late war variants surely might have faired better too with that extra HP.
The XP-60C/E, XP-62, & XF14C-2 might be on the fringe but never reached the Y stage, much less production or combat.
@@user-sz4xq3ld3y Y-stage doesn't matter. Most US aircraft designs never had a Y-stage of development.
I love the comment about the Yak-9s: “Didn’t bother dropping ordinance before engaging”
😂
Soviet pilots were themselves very good and had a lot of experience but were totally incompetant when training foreign pilots. They had no good training program in place at all. Hence why so many North Korean and Chinese pilots in MiG-15's got shot down relatively easily. You can give someone one of the most advanced planes out there, but if they do not know how to fly it, you will not get that far.
The only Air Force they had a good record with training were the North Vietnamese.
Hi Greg, very minor correction on one point. The piston-powered A-1 Skyraider also scored not one but two air to air kills against jets in Vietnam, once in '65 and again in '66. I believe the victims were MiG 17s or 19s. Love the video!
Good point, I forgot about those.
That was a turbo prop. Different.@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
@@user-qg6by9le2f the A-1 was a turbo pop? NOPE, wrong. it had a wright R3350 duplex cyclone, definitely not a turbo prop. the A-1 was the very end of piston engines in military service.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobilesVery embarrassing way for a Mig pilot to go splat.
In addition, there was another case, when piston powered La-11 shot down F-86 Sabre on November 30, 1951 during the Korean war
My mother-in-law, Helen Minor Black-Thompson, was a "Rosie The Riveter" during WWII at the Goodyear Aircraft factory in Akron Ohio during the war years. She was a riveter on the tail sections of the F4U Corsair.
That's really cool. Thanks.
So was my Aunt Mary. I assume that your MIL was a small lady like my aunt, to get into small places.
The first thing you lose to the cold is your fine motor skills. A heater is an absolute necessity for fighter.
They had heated suits you know but that's problematic in the tropics.
Really, most of the limits to what a fighter can do, Id argue, are first restricted by what the pilot has to work with.
Want better turn? Put the flap lever where the pilot can reach in a fight
Still worried about agility? Make sure the pilot has enough visibility to plan out where they need to dance off to
Need more power? Make the prop and engine management procedure faster
Not enough firepower? Better gunsight
Too fragile in combat? Put the instruments somewhere the pilot can check them while still nursing the wounded bird home
if I let my room get a little too cold I am noticeably less able to type and generally do stuff on a PC, and perform worse in games.
Makes my hands feel the way getting drunk makes your eyes feel.
@@ThePaulv12 Apparently it is still cold at 30000/40000ft
I wanted to add that the early access for Patreons is nice, but watching without ads is really, really nice.
Thanks
Thanks. I like videos add free as well.
Two words: uBlock Origin
I pay for YT Premium because I was living in Kuwait and they fed me a non-skippable 1+45 infomercial in Arabic. Now there is a whole NAVAIR section on human factors.
I had not realized how advanced the -5 was compared with the previous versions until I worked on a -5 for 2 years. A very impressive machine!!!
In what -5 did you work? I only know of one still using the original engine.
@@Metrallaroja I worked on the one that is stationed here in Germany. It doesn’t have the original engine but for me also the rest of the systems, the oil system and the hydraulic canopy and so on were really cool!
@@klausmuller8180 oh, lucky you what a dream job :)
F4U-5 FAH-609 is the only one still using the original engine if anyone wonders and it even runs but they dont fly it.
Wow that is the FIRST picture I've seen of a full WW2 hangar deck. Holy CRAP.
It's a British carrier, even tighter than normal. Look at how little space there is above the folded wings.
Thank you for (a) covering the importance of ergonomics, (b) how any design is a series of tradeoffs, and (c) how accidents accounted for many aircraft losses.
That was a great point Greg made and as a professional pilot, his knowledge of how important ergonomics are, makes all his videos high quality documentaries.
I had the privilege of sitting in an F4U-5 cockpit back in 2007 at Oshkosh. I walked by the plane and stopped to admire it. The pilot was sitting under the nose under the shade. Since it was my absolute favorite plane, I was able to have a detailed conversation about it and he trusted me to sit in it. I acted casual about it, but I was ecstatic. My friend took a few pictures of me in the cockpit - check that one off my bucket list. Thanks for all the detailed videos you did on my favorite plane. I was born too late to fly one, but late enough to have access to amazing content like yours on the web.
17:05 case in point: Hawker Typhoon
Between the wings blowing off, tails falling off, carbon monoxide poisoning, engine failures, accidents, etc. a lot of airplanes were lost.
Another example, Mustang MkI/Ia. In the first 18months of combat operations with the RAF, only 8 were shot down by AAA, Flak, or enemy fighters. All of the rest lost were due to accidents, or hitting things at low altitude (trees, buildings, hills, telephone poles, wires, a fence...).
It wasn’t until the Hawker Fury came along (too late) that they got it right.
@@davidelliott5843the corsair got it right long before....
I remember getting excited about it being ba baa black sheep nite as a kid. I believe that show saved an encouraged the restoration of many wrecks. The f4u was not well known before the show
I didn't know it had predecessors until a few years ago.
For most of my life I thought the F4U was the only plane from that manufacturer.
Yes, me too! Easily my favorite show as a kid growing up...I was NOT happy about it's cancellation! I wondered how a show that good(in my eyes) could get cancelled after just 2 seasons(it actually was nearly cancelled after the first season, but after a hiatus, it returned for one more), when so many inferior shows(in my eyes) ran for many seasons. I did prefer the first season over the first....
Marine marketing wins again!
An F4U was the first WWII warbird I ever saw in person, when I was maybe 4-5 years old. It was LOUD.
The Naval reserve unit in St. Louis, MO in the late 40's and early 50's flew air defense missions with radar equipped - 5's.
One of the greatest joys I get watching your videos is seeing all of these incredible photos I've never seen before.
Thanks General, I do try to find images that not only fit the narration, but are not super commonly seen.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Opened this vid with Argentine Navy, rare indeed. Thanks Greg!
Fell for the F4U as a kid watching Black Sheep Squadron. I also have bee a Navy fighter fan F4U, F-4 Phantom and of coarse F-14 Tomcat!
Just this morning I listened to a radio interview called "World of Aviation" They interviewed a guy who flew Rare Bear at Reno for 3-4 years. He raced there a total of 18 times. He said the Sea Fury was by far his favorite aircraft. He now owns one.
...he is an exceptionally wealthy man, no doubt....
Thanks for setting us straight about the small weight of cockpit heaters.
All that rubber oil hose and a radiator. OMG.
2700hp! Monster 👹
Towards the end of WWII, the R-2800 series was approaching hyper-engine output levels. And since the Corsair used a mechanical supercharger system, imagine what would happen if power recovery turbines were added, like what they did with the Turbo-Cyclone engines used on the P-2 Neptune patrol bomber.
The picture at about 27:55 showing 10 F4U's tied down opposite each other appears to be an example of "wind milling". This was when carrier captains used their prop planes as makeshift side thrusters to dock the carrier. Needless to say the engines were prone to overheating when run up while the plane was stationary, and the process was detested by the aircraft maintenance chiefs.
Hard to believe that’s a real thing that was done
@@mcamp9445 I know for sure it happened at least once when the Dutch HMS Karel Doorman was refused port facilities during a 'promotion tour' in the pacific whilst being boycotted due to issues the Dutch had with the UN during the Indonesian war of independence.
They might even have used Sea Furies but would have to look that up 🙂
Outstanding video, Greg! It always impressed me that the FW 190 and, later, this aircraft had FADEC before FADEC was possible...if that makes any sense. As for weight, what comes to mind is Saburo Sakai's memoir, Samurai. The Japanese were weight-obsessed for a reason, but thinking that pulling the radio and leaving the parachute behind *improved your survival chances* owing to better maneuverability is perhaps more of a cultural viewpoint than a purely practical one.
Not purely a cultural viewpoint either. IJN aircrew were often flying especially long distances to fight, in situations where pickup would be very unlikely regardless of whether they survived a bailout. And the radio didn't work, often enough that they didn't trust it--didn't see it as added value in the first place. And the Zero in particular was a lightweight aircraft, on which the marginal 25 kg or however much mattered more. It achieved its performance in spite of low-powered engines by comprehensive weight reduction. So in ditching the parachute and the radio, the pilots/aircrew were eschewing things they thought were practically pretty worthless to begin with, in exchange for a little extra performance including fuel economy with which to gain time on station, margin for making it back to the airfield/carrier, maneuverability, etc.
Of course the strategic factors that put them in that position were themselves rather irrational. You're not wrong, but decisions leading to this outcome extended well beyond the aircrew.
Since FADEC stands for "Full Authority Digital Engine Control", for the WW2 and post-WW2 super-prop fighters, the automatic engine controls would be better described as FAAEC: "Full Authority Analog Engine Control". Of course digital electronics did exist at the time, but a system providing the same degree of control as a modern gas turbine engine FADEC back in the 1940s or 1950s would probably have been bigger and heavier than the entire aircraft.
@@sealpiercing8476 Fair point!
@@sealpiercing8476 ditching. The radio made sense ditching the parachute did not, especially with how low the Japanese pilot training rate was. Though you are correct, they were often operating far from potential rescue. Certainly some pilots lives would’ve been saved, though the IGN didn’t actually seem to care to even try to rescue pilots in the way that the Americans did. for all its early success, Japan was kind of shit at war.
@@lloydevans2900 More like HOTAS than FADEC.
I'm actually addicted to your awesomely researched videos. Yours and Flight Dojo's. The real magic of internal combustion engines. Thank you for your work, these videos are IMO a reason why educational content should be not only in private TH-cam hands. It's too important. Nowhere else is this information this dense, this good researched, from primary sources available. As I said, I'm addicted. I should go to sleep for I gotta get up early tomorrow, but I HAVE to watch this first!
KUDOS!!
Absolutely one of my favorite WWII aircraft. Thank you for explaining so much about this beauty with its distinctive design.
Love the Superprop Series, excellently researched. And I'll always watch a new video about the F4-U Corsair, I still have lots to learn about the different variants. Cheers Greg
Apparently, so do I.
FYI there is an early very early bird cage version being done in Middle California somewhere I forget where they used orange primer instead of zinc chromate 5:50
The F4U Corsair is my all time hands down favorite aircraft from WW2. The reversed gullwing with air intakes at the wing root giving it is unmistakable whistle. Love it man whst great looking & performing aircraft.
Hello Greg, a small detail/addition regarding flooring in a cockpit. When you manage to get yourself in a negative g manouvre. Loose objects like the sand from your boots can come flying into your eyes. Thus a cockpit with flooring is so much easyer to keep clean. Tip from a glider pilot. And once again thank you for the great video
That's a really good point. I totally forgot about that. I haven't done any negative G stuff in a few decades.
Flying a glide ;)
pens, pencils, cigarette butts, lost screws, rivets, etc. Most would not believe the crud that collects in the bilge of a working airplane.
Nicely done, Greg, as usual. Not sure if dad ever flew a dash 5, though he trained for nearly a year in the dash 4, waiting for the invasion of Japan that never arrived. While working for McDonnell and flying the XF-85, F2H, XF-88, etc. he did climb into a Corsair of some type to fly over our suburban house one day. I have no idea what year it might have been - maybe 1949 or 1950. There was a naval reserve unit at Lambert Field in St. Louis, where McDonnell was located, and dad had 500 hours in the dash 4, so he must have persuaded someone to let him borrow a Corsair for an hour or two. Mom made a point of getting us kids outside to wave from the back yard, and dad waggled the Corsair's wings when he flew over, but I was 4 or 5 at the time, and not paying attention to armament types or cowl ducting. Not surprised that Vought tilted the engine down a bit for visibility with the dash 5. The Hellcat that dad flew in combat in 1944 was famous for its tail-down attitude in level flight because Grumman built it with, I think, a 3° downward tilt to the engine, and for the same visibility purpose.
This is such a great channel.. thanks Greg. I realize you could have just collected those manuals and traded/sold them at trade fairs or on the internet and most of us would never have had the opportunity to learn about all this fascinating information. 🙂
The Corsair with the WK tail letters was from VMF-224, I was in that squadron in the late 60s as an A6-A plane captain. It was VMA-aw-224 at that time, but it was good to see it in this excellent presentation.
I was lucky enough to see an actual F4 Corsair at an air show recently, at Scone,NSW,Australia. Really impressive hearing those big radial engines under load. As always, thanks Greg for excellent, technically informative videos on these superb machines and their evolution. You are correct about the battle between aircraft sophistication of ergonomics and cost in weight and/or complexity. Stanley Hooker of Rolls Royce had a customary exchange with Sir Sidney Camm of Hawker where they humorously derided each others planes and engines as being in conflict with mutual requirements. Then we have the absurd madness for example, of the mid war change to the Spitfire, where the Altimeter was suddenly changed to read elevation "backwards".
This is some of your absolute best work, Greg. You might be the best TH-camr out there.
I would be very interested in the story of the -6, -7 and AU-1 versions of the Corsair. These airplanes represented the beginnings of the dedicated attack role that became the A-1 Skyraider, A-4 Skyhawk, A-7 Corsair II and Grumman A-6 Intruders. I was in VA-52 an A-6 Squadron aboard the USS Kitty Hawk during the 70s. Today the Navy has come full circle back to the F/A-18.
Here's another tidbit from a lifelong RC flier. Down thrust also helps a great deal with p-factor.
Models often use down thrust and/or right thrust to keep things flying straight throughout the throttle range but I've learned, if there's a problem, to always add just down thrust first. It, obviously, helps with pitch up but usually reduces any tendency to yaw on takeoff or roll on a go-around as well. It also reduces the need to trim the plane during flight which, sadly, is something most RC fliers find overwhelming. Of course, despite my best efforts as an instructor, most of them never master the use of rudder and throttle.
They set up for takeoff, slam the throttle to full, and pray the runway is wide enough to take off 90 degrees to the left or try to correct with large rudder input. If they don't snap roll as soon as the wheels leave the ground they don't touch the rudder at all and don't touch the throttle until they chop it to idle for landing. Then, often as not, the engine quits and they try a tight, aileron and elevator only, turn to the runway with disastrous results.
Scale models of the Corsair, like the real ones, are always tricky at low speeds but without quite a bit of down thrust and perhaps some right thrust? It's a crash waiting to happen for the majority of pilots. It's not as bad as a plane with highly tapered wings, like a Spitfire or any Soviet fighter, in normal flight but requires a pilot somewhat above the norm.
Cheers!
First time listening to your stuff. I gotta say..your analysis is absolutely fantastic, and spot on. You Sir, are a Master of your Craft Very informative...and entertaining. Thanks for the hard work. May the "BlackSheep" love for Ever!! Semper Fi !!
These are indeed superior videos that demonstrate how "regular" media sucks. Hats off to Greg! Greetings from Portugal.
What a beautifully beast…loved it since being a teenager.
I spoke to a Koreans war Corsair pilot and he told me he could also smoke a P51 When they would play. He had the 4 20mm plus the radar. He got caught in a N. Korean flak trap one night and the plane got out of it with no damage and hurt them back. He became one of my hero's because the Corsair is my favorite Aircraft. I would side the him over a SEA FURY. (-: Great presentation Greg
radar? corsair? im intrigued
The F4U-5N was te night fighter version of the -5, and they got an early type of radar on their right wing. @@unfazedmc5734
@@unfazedmc5734They built night fighter variants of the Corsair. Usually they had a big radar pod installed into their wing making them easy to identify.
Unrelated, just had yet another person on Facebook claim the Lancaster was the first ever nuclear bomber. I corrected him and linked your video and challenged him to prove otherwise.
Thank you for doing that. Now if only that charlatan Felton had accepted my debate offer.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles exactly what I was thinking. I know that by asking the guy I encountered for sources and linking your video, he probably wont respond. But it's amazing how easy a single careless youtuber with enough followers can spread bad information, and how hard it is to convince their followers the info is wrong even when you provide sources and they provide none.
@@SoloRenegade Uuhh.. I'm tempted to name a few polititians now 😁
I've been waiting for this one. Worth my Patreon subscription all by itself. Thanks, Greg!
Thanks Mike, I'm glad you liked it.
I very much enjoyed learning about the -5 and the other super prop comparisons. Please keep them coming!
I really enjoy your lectures , all of them are very detailed , very entertaining and very relaxing for this viewer .
Before I got my A&P license and smoking was still allowed in the hangar, I helped out working on the R-2,800. A mechanic asked me, as I was passing by, to please hand him the cigarette that he had dropped. I looked all over the floor but I couldn't see the cigarette that he said was right in front of me. Part of the ignition lead is called a cigarette and I couldn't see it because I was searching for a Winston cigarette that he smoked. At 16 I discovered that two different items can have the same name and I'll never forget what an aircraft cigarette is.
Best thumbnail Ive seen in a while. I genuinely said holey sh**t while processing what it meant
I wish we got to know how good the Sea Fury could have become with improvements. Such a beast of an airplane.
I want to see a corsair built using titanium and modern composites. That would be an amazing machine.
The biggest issue is getting a shop that can manufacture the R2800 engine. That thing was state of the art in the air cooled engine world. The USA can't even manufacture 16in shells for their old battleships, let alone 18 cylinder engines. .
@khaccanhle1930 yeah. Good point. Gonna need to use a CnC to build an even bigger CnC alongside a steelmill and forge... step one: go find some iron ore.
Step two: get geology degree. Go back to step one.
Super nifty keen video Greg. Thrilled I caught the premiere! Had a blast. 🐿
I love to see Greg's productions. I am a long ago retired Navy Aviator who loved my post maintenance test job and Quality Assurance Officer/Aviator job. Prior to that as an enlisted Marine I was assistant head of maintenance for deployed Harrier jets. I loved it. Sometimes I think Gregg has a PhD in Aviation Fuels Systems Engineering. And he seems to have worked hard, for years getting his hands on WW2 aircraft maintenance materials. But still is the mostly untold story of fuels development for aviation in WW2. I learned a lot about fuel systems metering into jet engines trying to figure out why some of our planes would go faster then others.
Great video per usual Greg, and it’s on my favorite prop!
I had no idea a Corsair was large enough to climb up inside. Very interesting, as are all your videos.
I loved learning so much about the -5. Hope you take the time to do the same for the F2G one of these days.
Once again your channel has another great aviation dissertation, so much attention to detail. o/
Great episode, thank you. I appreciate your explanation of the variants. Have always thought Corsairs were just neat as heck, even though my dad flew Skyraiders.
Fantastic episode. A topic that might be worth considering: knowing what we know today, what change, or changes, to fundamental design might a contemporary designer with perfect foreknowledge make to optimize a / each key WW2 gen airplane? Things like span, wing thickness, structural margins or criteria, different contemporary engine, airfoil section, armament, etc. Would the IJN benefit from a slightly more rugged Zero? Would the Brits benefit from a Spit with more fuel capacity, or being designed w drop tanks from day 1? Going to the ergo vid, would a "modern" cockpit be the best change in a Sept 1939 Me or Hurricane?
I think it's also worth mentioning that a better cockpit made for a more comfortable and confident pilot who wasn't distracted by freezing hands, an awkward instrument layout, or worrying about a bullet coming through the back of his chair.
Very true.
Interesting side bit i read in a book on the red tails.
Since the squadron was all black, we didnt do very well in extremely cold climates, it was found that they did extremely well in tbe P47, since its cockpit heat was basically hot air pulled off the air cooled engine.
As you discussed the comforts added to the -5 cockpit, I noticed a lighter and ashtray in the cockpit diagram...😎
Regarding intercepting B-36s, I can only imagine that Navy/Marine pilots tried to unofficially stalk them, just for fun. 😉
Well, it was probably hard to get a match lit in the thin air at high altitude, hence the lighter. There were ashtrays in airliner seats into the 80s as far as I can remember.
@@jaym8027 But it seems very luxurious in a supposedly austere fighter cockpit.
I agree, it's very much a reminder of how the past is a foreign country. There's a famous picture of a B-26, taken from the front in midair. The bombardier is puffing on a cigarette. @@petesheppard1709
13:44 "There are no solutions, only tradeoffs."
-Thomas Sowell
Thank you, an awesome video again.
About the cockpit re-design adding weight to the whole aircraft, I have a couple things to mention on top of the things already mentioned.
When you design an aircraft, and you factor in ergonomics to begin with, a lot of 'human factors compromise', in this case specifically an addition of weight, can be used for other gains.
German designs, for instance, can have two largely un-noticed benefits in this regard.
First, the cockpit floor on the 190 adds to overall structure. Even the airframes that predate monocoque construction can benefit from this. Both of Mitsubishi's relatively lightweight fighters - the A6M Zero and the J2M Raiden - had cockpit floors to begin with. Note, that A6M3 weighs about 1,820kg empty, which is literally half-a-ton lighter than the earlier Spitfires. The J2M Raiden, at least the early ones, weigh about the same or slightly less than comparable Bf 109 G variants, yet the plane is slightly larger than P-51 Mustang in almost every metric. This is not to suggest the floor was somehow magical in their lightweighting, yet in both cases, floor was positioned appropriately to be a part of fuselage structure.
Second, the seating position not only helps in terms of better G tolerance and easier manipulation of side controls, but it also helps in reducing overall height required for canopy and fuselage. Messerschmitt Bf 109, a plane with much narrower fuselage cross section than a Spitfire, had just enough room to squeeze a pilot, control stick gears and links, and a portion of the fuel tank, all in a relatively vertical orientation. This applies to most of modern-day racing cars, too. Note the comparatively large height of pre-1960s F1 cars, such as Maserati 250F, versus post-1960s F1 cars, such as notoriously-understeer-prone Lotus 25, or even Lotus 18. RMR configuration and lack of driveshaft is a factor, but even then the car could have been lower with lower-slung seating position.
But, these positives are a compromise as well. If you wish to use floor as a part of overall structure, then mounting it too high or too low would complicate an appropriate positioning of wing spars, rudder pedals, control linkages, (if needed) a space for main gear wheels to retract into etc., while low-slung position could make ingress/egress a little trickier. Compare getting out of Chevrolet Tahoe versus Alfa 4C, and the latter is more demanding of your waist, thighs and knees.
Also, when the argument is that changing the cockpit after finalisation of the airframe would add weight, I cannot think of reasons why it would be as large of a detriment as some seem to think. Re-positioning the gauges would add weight for one, but can make the wiring, installation and the rest lighter for two or more. Adding floors would probably add weight in floor panel and fixings, not to mention the alterations needed in the manufacturing process. However, just by the floor, sometimes armoured, being there, you can make the structure nearby and/or linked to the floor slightly lighter, either by punching a few more holes in the spar, or rearranging fuselage skin panels to be larger in size, reducing rivets and fixtures required. So, again, if done so properly, weight gain is not impossible to be tackled, especially considering the level changes at different stages you already need to make anyway.
Just to add a bit more: Mostly speaking, the question for initial designers isn't necessarily using the least amount of wires, but also to reduce manufacturing complications, through less intertwined wiring and/or reducing complication in factors otherwise related to installations. And, on top of that, you can think of the weight increase through cockpit re-design as a penalty for not considering ergonomics to begin with, not a sacrifice in pursuit of greater considerations for human factors. A.k.a, a well deserved consequence and lessons learned.
If you read so far, thank you. And thanks again Greg for a superb video.
Great post, and I appreciate you mentioning the 4C.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobilesIt’s an awesome car! Imagine that with longitudinally mounted and supercharged Lampredi 2.0 and 6-speed DCT, would be even more awesome.
Excellent!!! Your analysis as always is so spot on and based in facts as opposed to conjecture. Thanks again
I love that you’re talking about human factors lately and it really matters and is overlooked. A plane having to constantly adjust fuel mixture and cowl flaps and engine setting etc.. is more likely going to do worse than a fighter pilot in a plane who only has to control his throttle lever and gets to keep his eyes and mind on the fight. Even though the opposing aircraft has the same/better performance on paper. (p40’s and bf109f4’s in north africa I think is a perfect example)
Excellent overview of the dash 5. I learned lots. Many thanks for your excellent work and please keep it up.
Well done as always Greg. Can’t wait for more superprop content. I’m thinking we get a dehavilland hornet or sea hornet video next. Ludicrously fast aircraft.
Mr. Greg, great work as usual.
Y
The effort put into your videos it's seen as well as greatly appreciated. 😀👍
Once again I love the nuts and bolts driven flavor of your research. It is hard, if not impossible, to dispute any of your conclusions. Excellent job. I know it may be an oversight, however, the Douglas A-1 Skyraider should be included in your list of piston powered aircraft to takedown a jet powered aircraft. Vietnam War era US Navy A-1 shooting down a North Vietnamese Air Force MiG-17. Really appreciate the hard work that goes into your videos.
You are correct, I forgot that one. Not exactly a fighter, but certainly a Superprop.
Also, the A-1 has the distinction of being the only aircraft to drop a toilet in anger on the enemy.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I thought the video referred only to props that had beat the MiG-15, otherwise we could also include those that beat the Me-262.
Hi Greg. Great videos. I just found your channel this evening. When I was a young teenager and younger, in the1960s, there was an F2-G in Pioneer Park in Lincoln, Nebraska on display, but it was in a very poor condition at that time. In the late 1990s, I tried to track down the airplane,but it must have been scrapped by then. That is more history lost forever. Have a great day.
Very well done video. I didn't know the Corsair was that much more expensive than the Hellcat.
Greg, you always do a great job presenting the facts and making good, cogent arguments. In those regards, this episode is one of your best. Outstanding!
When Chuck Yeager was asked by General LeMay on the high altitude lateral instability of the MiG-15, Yeager responded, _"It's just bad enough for the cannon fire to hit a B-36 wingtip to wingtip."_ Yeager was _not_ a part of the bomber mafia. The F4U-5 would have made mincemeat out of the B-36.
As a fighter pilot Yeager often opposed the "bomber mafia", both in the air and at social occasions.
@@fafner1 Yeager was a legendary test pilot but as a human being left a lot to be desired. Always trash-talking other pilots (including Neil Armstrong) and late in his life laughed about strafing women and children in WWII. Oh well.
@@alecfoster4413 Your comment is about 40,000,000 miles off topic. Go to TYT or something with that crap. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
@@fafner1 -- When the B-47 was still in test, Yeager was assigned to the flight testing. One of the bomber guys in flight test told Yeager he was now a bomber guy. Yeager pretty much said, _"Yeah. No."_
@@alecfoster4413you just don’t lead them as much
As allways, very fair and unbiased opinions. Really appreciate this approach to your vids 👍
Yet again Greg nails it! In an _"in the weeds"_ historical, technical, and pilots perspective analysis of a WW II warbird that most "content producers" would have the audience clicking away after 10 mins, but Greg has us unexpectedly wishing for more when the video comes to an end.
And what a great topic, crowning the Chance Vought F4U Corsair as the best piston engine Fighter of WW II against some stiff and formidable wartime and post-war opposition.
Don't forget, the common consensus is that the Japanese Zero was better than American fighters all through the brutal, bloody, hard-fought year of 1942, but the Corsair (and the also Pratt & Whitney radial powered Republic P-47 Thunderbolt as well) first flew in 1940, and had America been on a war footing like Japan was in the late 1930s the Corsair and Thunderbolts would have seen more widespread use months earlier.
A real tribute to the Chance Vaught engineers and production workers, to the Naval aviation supply, acquisition and development branches, and of course a fitting salute to the carrier crews and land crews who kept them flying, and especially to the pilots who flew them on long hazardous ocean missions against deadly enemy AA and opposing fighters
As a teenager, areas of Phoenix,Az were basically scrap/junk yards('68-72) alot of this 'scrap' was old warbirds of WW2 vintage.went onto one scrap yard and be hold saw 3 maybe 4 Corsairs sitting on their wheels on the yard. Not knowing their worth, I sat in one cockpit and looked at the full array of cockpit. Now I'd wish I had written down the serial numbers of the airframes and engines for then the Confederate Air Force.
The 5"/38 shell was 27kg (~60lbs), the various 8" around five times that (~115-155kg). The reason for the myth about rockets hitting as hard as the 8" comes from bursting charge, the weight of explosive was simlar between 8" and rocket which is meaningful for some applications (like defoliation, chemical gas, smoke or incendiary impacts ect), but even for damaging fairly unarmored target ignoring the fragmented case and incoming velocity of the round is to ignore almost the majority of its effect on most targets.
Just ballparking a cockpit aluminum floor for the F4U. 1/8" x 36" x 60" of aluminum is.25.5 lbs. It'd prob be thinner but there'd be ribs and such. That's about 97 rounds, + the links, of 50 cal.
Ergonomics, like you saw, reduces accidents and combat losses (eyes where you need em)
Unless I screwed up the calculations.
Thanks Greg!!
That could be, but I'm not sure it would need to be 1/8 of an inch. It's not a floor people will walk on. It was probably just think sheet aluminum. It's also possible that if it was really thick it would add strength and material could be taken out elsewhere.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles It definitely could be thinner, perhaps as thin as .062" but it has to be removable for access. That means lots of fasteners which actually add a lot of weight. And, the thinner panel would need closely spaced ribs, stiffeners or other structure. This would be tertiary structure--not airframe load-bearing structure, so it is simply weight added on top of the airframe weight. The only dual-purpose might be as armor plate, but the panel(s) would be so large in this approach as to be weight prohibitive. Much better to simply line the seat....
Hey Greg! Love the video!
Personally, I’d love to see a dedicated f4u Corsair series like the p47.
Some great knowledge, and specs on the corsair. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us.
Outstanding analysis Mr Greg- a hearty thank you for,all,of this!
I know it's not really a warplane, but I'd love to see a video of the F2G.
Thanks for your work on this video, it's very much appreciated.
F2G is most definitely a warplane and a very good one, but by the time they were finishing ironing out all the problems it had, the F8F was coming onto the scene, and the Navy lost all interest in it.
Good to know they made a name for themselves in air racing. Otherwise, I think it would have been forgotten.
I thought they never got around to installing armaments, but if it's a warplane, that's good enough for me.@@SeraphoftheRoundTable
G. Looking forward to this one. Just like all of Greg's vids. I always learn something new!
Great information! Wish we'd see this on history channel.
Greg! Wow, great video! Dang, I learned a lot. And your delivery is awesome - perhaps the best narration on TH-cam (right up there with Lance, The History Guy).
I knew that my dad flew Corsairs for the USMC in WWII and Korea, but I wondered if he ever flew the F-4U-5? So I dug out his old logbooks. The entries for his WWII flying with VMF-314 only state "F-4U" so I'm guessing that that's what they (or whichever Admin was filling in the pilots' logbooks) called the "-1" back then. But he also flew the FG-1D a **lot**, which I didn't realize, and something called the F-3A which apparently also was a Corsair built by Brewster, famous...infamous?...for the F2A Buffalo. The story goes that the Brewster Corsairs had defective wing attach-fittings which caused them to be limited in speed and prohibited from aerobatics...which makes a fighter pretty much, well, **not** a fighter.
In 1950, when dad got recalled for Korea (VMF-232) the F-4U-4 started showing up in his logbook, and he got a lot of flight time in them. Alas, I found no entries for the F-4U-5. In January of 1953, he began flying the jet-powered Douglas F-3D-2 and said good-bye to piston fighters forever.
I must admit, I loved the DC-7 video, I had not heard of the engine technology. This is from someone who grew up in the 60s and 70s reading his father's subscriptions to Wings and Airpower magazines. I also remember the sonic booms from planes flying out of Tinker AFB.
Great video! Your videos make building plastic airplane models even better!
Thanks for reviewing the -5 , thats always been my favorite. I had no idea about how automated the engine management and cowling flaps were on the -5 till now.
Another great and informative vid, thanks for the content. One thing to note, the supercharging on the Sea Fury was basic by the standards of the day and work had only just begun to squeeze the considerably more power it was capable of. Work really stopped on it with the rise of the jets, but it would be interesting to see just how much they could have reliably achieved, some say 5000 hp+.
Good comment on the air frame development
thanks for all the great content greg, you have some of the best stuff on youtube.
Always loved the Corsair. Such a badass bird
Really nice video. I would love to see a video on the changes from WWII fighter to a Reno Air Racer. You do such a good job on engine performance and explaining compromised designs.
Thanks, and I sort of did that in the Sea Fury video.
The G-limit is for the -5N variants. The daytime fighter without the radar on the wing had the same G limits as previous corsairs
Dang it, you're right! The G limit for the standard Dash 5 is 7.5Gs. I'll add a note in the video description. Good catch!
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Yep, 7.5G is the standard for all variants. Also, F4U-5 had improved rudder and elevator with spring tabs so it has better characteristics at high speed.
On the subject of superprop Corsairs, I would love to see an in-depth video on the F2G “Super Corsair”.
The Corsair has always been my favorite along side of the P 47. I'm excited that you've made this episode.
yet another superb video! Thanks Greg!
Wow that is one hell of an aircraft - must be the ultimate.
Another great technical presentation. Most interesting. I've maybe posted this question previously in a Superprops video but as a "what if?", if jet development for all powers had not been possible - for some imaginary metallurgy or physics obstacle, how would the various lines of development of superprops have likely proceeded? For example, here you state that the Sea Fury was only at the beginning of development but the Corsair well down the line. Would Corsair have been limited in what technical improvements could have been made that Sea Fury could have taken advantage of? If for the sake of informed speculation we consider that Germany wasn't overrun and carried on with the lines of piston engined fighter development they were working on in 1944-5 - how would all these aircraft have compared by, let's say 1950? Clearly it's a bit like saying "what if dinosaurs were around today?" but I am sure the technical details will be of interest to many and I doubt that anybody could put a speculative video presentation of the subject together with better technical grounding than you.
Another outstanding video, Greg. Thank you.
Excellent video. Your reference to a rich fuel mixture helping to cool an engine reminds me of a pilot's story I once read from the European theater. As I recall, his P51 took a cooling system hit, He used his manual priming pump to keep his engine cool enough to make it back to base. Supposedly the knob wore through his glove and well into the meat of his hand.
Granted, I read this about 50 years ago... does that story sound familiar?
I haven't heard that. I kinda doubt it would work, but maybe...
Excellent video on one of my favorite aircraft.
I cannot wait for the P 47 range debate. For such a niche topic I have seen multiple people in different comment sections mentioning you by name and contradicting you with no evidence.
The Santos Dumont clowns were emboldened by Real Engineering and are showing up everywhere now, and some people only got interested in WW2 aviation because of the legend of the Mustang, so I understand why they are emotional about it.
But I hope you have a civil, truth-seeking discussion, as I think that in that domain there is simply no contest.
Maybe the real engineering guy will debate me. I might reach out to him after the upcoming debate.
When it comes to comparing rockets to artillery shells, it is important to note that the rockets of the day(US HVAR and British RP-3) could fit supracalibre warheads that would have bigger HE content than their nominal 5" and 3" diameter. Also, an artillery shell needs a thick case body to withstand the pressure of firing. A rocket projectile could have a much thinner casing of its warhead and thus have more HE filling, making them punch above their weight, so to speak.
True, and the rocket can use certain powerful explosives that could not survive a trip through a artillery gun-barrel.