P51 Voodoo going for a speed record..

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Cohen the Barbarian

Not unreliable. It took a bit to figure out how to operate it safely aboard aircraft carriers due almost exclusively to its long ass nose, but once that little problem was solved it was, literally--along with the Hellcat, a war winner in the Pacific.

Coulda swore that's what I said.

As the team put it, the engine sneezed at 4500 rpm, and full throttle. He landed and never actually lost power but they don't know what's wrong with the engine.

a reply to: Cohen the Barbarian

I believe you did.

That's more fun to type than "I agree".

a reply to: Zaphod58
Predetenation maybe?

a reply to: Cohen the Barbarian

It's biggest knock when first introduced was its propensity to eliminate ensigns. It was a terror to land on a carrier because that long nose rendered the carrier invisible on approach. Once the Brits got hold of it and showed the U.S. Navy how to land it on a carrier (a curving approach where the nose didn't block sight of the carrier until the last second) it served admirably flying from carriers. Because of the vision problem the Corsair was, early on, assigned to ground-based units. Later in the war it made the transition to carriers.

that's not my understanding of the main reason the navy didn't want it at first. although it was part of it. the two other reasons was that when they approached stall speed for landing, the engine lost it's torque and the aircraft dropped to the left and the left landing gear would collapse. also the plane had the tendency to bounce on touchdown, this would cause the hook to miss the arresting wire.

Landing on a carrier deck required the pilot to have the plane at stall speed just as the tail-hook snagged the deck wire, but this was made very difficult by the wicked stall characteristics of the F4U. Just as stall speed was reached, the left wing tended to drop like a rock. In a deck landing this could cause the landing gear to collapse resulting in injuries to the pilot and severe damage to the aircraft. Assuming luck was with the pilot and he landed intact, the Corsair normally "bottomed out" the shock absorbers as it slammed down on the deck. The resulting recoil caused the plane to bounce high in the air. The tailhook itself sometimes failed to "trap" the plane by engaging an arrestor wire. If this happened on a straight deck carrier it usually meant the aircraft plowed into the planes parked forward. (Angle decks did not start appearing on US carriers until 1952.) It was said on a straight deck carrier there were only two kinds of landings; a "trap" and a catastrophe!
Vought F4U Corsair

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: Cohen the Barbarian

Edited because reasons.

edit on 8 29 2017 by Cohen the Barbarian because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: Cohen the Barbarian

It's biggest knock when first introduced was its propensity to eliminate ensigns. It was a terror to land on a carrier because that long nose rendered the carrier invisible on approach. Once the Brits got hold of it and showed the U.S. Navy how to land it on a carrier (a curving approach where the nose didn't block sight of the carrier until the last second) it served admirably flying from carriers. Because of the vision problem the Corsair was, early on, assigned to ground-based units. Later in the war it made the transition to carriers.

that's not my understanding of the main reason the navy didn't want it at first. although it was part of it. the two other reasons was that when they approached stall speed for landing, the engine lost it's torque and the aircraft dropped to the left and the left landing gear would collapse. also the plane had the tendency to bounce on touchdown, this would cause the hook to miss the arresting wire.

Landing on a carrier deck required the pilot to have the plane at stall speed just as the tail-hook snagged the deck wire, but this was made very difficult by the wicked stall characteristics of the F4U. Just as stall speed was reached, the left wing tended to drop like a rock. In a deck landing this could cause the landing gear to collapse resulting in injuries to the pilot and severe damage to the aircraft. Assuming luck was with the pilot and he landed intact, the Corsair normally "bottomed out" the shock absorbers as it slammed down on the deck. The resulting recoil caused the plane to bounce high in the air. The tailhook itself sometimes failed to "trap" the plane by engaging an arrestor wire. If this happened on a straight deck carrier it usually meant the aircraft plowed into the planes parked forward. (Angle decks did not start appearing on US carriers until 1952.) It was said on a straight deck carrier there were only two kinds of landings; a "trap" and a catastrophe!
Vought F4U Corsair

And Vought did some redesigning to alleviate that issue. As I said, it was not uncommon for new designs to have teething problems.

If there was a comment about the P&W "losing torque" in your link I missed it, but it did point out the Brits showed us how to do it: "It was the British who finally worked out a method of landing the Corsair on their carriers in spite of the visibility problems caused by the long nose. Instead of the normal downwind-crosswind-final approach method, the British simply turned downwind, then made a slow, continuous curve which aligned the Corsair with the deck only at the last second before the aircraft touched down and trapped. This method allowed the pilot to keep the Landing Signals Officer in view right up to the moment the plane was over the fan-tail where the LSO gave the sign to either "cut" or make another attempt."

a reply to: Blackfinger

Probably. They said something about a damaged part in the engine but it wasn't clear if it was on this flight or a previous flight.

a reply to: Cohen the Barbarian

They still do it that way today.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Yep. When I was an active pilot, or rather, while I was still in training, I heard more than once that you could tell when a pilot was ex-navy by his circular approach. The fact they're still doing it today is a testament to its effectiveness.

I think we've probably derailed this thread enough.

a reply to: Cohen the Barbarian

If a thread in this forum DOESN'T get wildly derailed, I start to think there is a fundamental flaw in the universe and we're all doomed.

a reply to: Zaphod58

At least we generally keep aircraft or aircraft related subjects involved.......................some of the time.

a reply to: Cohen the Barbarian

...and it suddenly clicked why my instructor seems to favor almost continuous downwind-base-final turns...

Back on the subject, though, I always wish that they created a truly "unlimited" category at Reno, similar to the unlimited categories in tractor pulling or the open classes in transoceanic sailing. Something with rules along the lines of "It needs to be under this weight, fully loaded, and use a propeller."

Mostly because I want to see someone try to build something like Shockwave or American Spirit around a Kuznetsov NK-12.

I thought the two rules were prop driven and pass on the outside in the top class.

Top speed on a lap but failed to keep it above 1% for all four laps.Number is 554.69 MPH now