Could the F4U Corsair be licensed to be built by Canada and England?

Comet 4s had fuel tanks about 2/3 of the way along the leading edge but I have never seen one with wingtip tanks. Nimrods had wingtip pods for electronics.

...........................................................

Point taken!
Those fixed fuel tanks, 2/3 of the way out the wings of DH Comets and Lockheed Jetstars made little difference to airflow over the wing tips, but they reduce bending moments on wing spar roots.
Another point to ponder is that the latest Boeing twin-engined airliners (777 and 787) are discouraged from landing with empty outer wing tanks for fear that they will crack wing spars. They also have active ailerons to shed lift and reduce bending moments while flying through turbulence.
 
An aside: how much difference to range did the fuselage tank make? Would it make sense for the FAA birds to delete it, & get a shorter nose?
 

NothingNow

Banned
An aside: how much difference to range did the fuselage tank make? Would it make sense for the FAA birds to delete it, & get a shorter nose?

You can't delete it. That's the main tank.

You could shrink it a bit to move the cockpit forward, but it wouldn't solve the handling issues, and is effectively a major redesign.
 
An aside: how much difference to range did the fuselage tank make? Would it make sense for the FAA birds to delete it, & get a shorter nose?

The XF4U had four wing tanks of 273 gallons, so only room for a single .50 and 10 small bombbbays in the wings,along with flotation bags.

Fuselage had two cowl guns

article_xf4u1.jpg


More armament was desired. More wing guns meant some of the wing tanks and other stuff had to go.
They wanted the tank right at the center of gravity, for the least changes in trim and maneuverability. So it got 237 gallons ahead of the pilot, and 114 in the wings. And a terrible blind spot:confused:

You can put a tank behind the pilot, like everyone else did.
The P-51 had one large enough to effect handling when full

Did it need 358 gallons, not counting drop tanks, over Europe or Atlantic?

No.

Late mark Spitfires had 164 gallons, photo recon with guns removed 133 gallons more, Imperial gallons, mind ;) 85 gallons for early.

Me-109 had 88 gallons, Fw-190 110 gallons internal.

Now had they wanted, could have gone with 6 50s( or 4 20mm) in the wings along with 114 gallons of fuel, and 60 gallons behind the pilot and keep the cowl guns and good visibility, and still have more fuel than any other European single engine fighter, since its for FAA and not escorting bombers to Berlin
 
Last edited:
Late mark Spitfires had 164 gallons, photo recon with guns removed 133 gallons more, Imperial gallons, mind ;) 85 gallons for early.

The Spitfire Mk. XIV carried 112 or (late) 145 gal. with 33 gal rear fuselage tank.
Spitfire PR Mk. XIX carried 254 gal. internal.
 
In Karachi - on their way to China, dumping ground for all of the Lend Lease crap we couldn't pawn off on our other Allies:

It wasn't bad for a 1939 fighter. Maybe better than some, was faster than the P-36 on the same HP, but like the Hawk, limited due to only having a single stage supercharger

But they were held in limbo after FDR blocked sales to Sweden, till 1943

Very few 1939 Fighters did well in 1943, then add in the trouble of how the Chinese AF operated.
 
The aircraft that might look familiar is the Vought V-143, last in line from a Northrop design bought by Vought, none of which had a long enough tail.

The Vultee Vanguard design was derived from a training aircraft, as a way to make a fighter on the cheap. The designer was Richard Palmer, who also had designed the Howard Hughes racer, of award-winning fame. The engine used in the P-66 was the P&W R-1830-33, AKA S3C4-G, which was equipped with a two-speed supercharger. Quite some time was wasted in the building of the P-66 developing the "ideal" radial cowling, a fate which also befell the Curtiss XP-42.

I wonder what would have happened if the Chinese were equipped with Corsairs instead of Vanguards.

pic_Vought_V-143.jpg
 
I see two areas where the Corsair would be useful to the USAAF. In the CBI Theater for the reasons stated above and in SOPAC in the Solomons because it will mean a common airframe between the USAAF, USMC, RNZAF, and land based USN squadrons.

I don't think it is needed in Europe and I don't see Kenney taking it in New Guinea because he preferred the P-38 to other fighters.

It would make a nice fighter for RAAF squadrons in New Guinea - something to replace their P-40s with.

What if Pappy Gunn gets to experiment with 20mm armed Corsairs courtesy of the RNZAF. Could he create an American version that can impress Gen. Kenney.
 
I see two areas where the Corsair would be useful to the USAAF. In the CBI Theater for the reasons stated above and in SOPAC in the Solomons because it will mean a common airframe between the USAAF, USMC, RNZAF, and land based USN squadrons.

I don't think it is needed in Europe and I don't see Kenney taking it in New Guinea because he preferred the P-38 to other fighters.

It would make a nice fighter for RAAF squadrons in New Guinea - something to replace their P-40s with.

What if Pappy Gunn gets to experiment with 20mm armed Corsairs courtesy of the RNZAF. Could he create an American version that can impress Gen. Kenney.

Do you really need cannon armed fighters against the Japanese? The standard on most US planes was the good old Browning .50 and against flimsy Japanese planes I think it is enough.
 
I was thinking using the 20mm for ground strafing as they were used in Korean or as a Yankee Typhoon/Tempest. Kenney's beloved P-38s can still handle the air to air combat.
 
marathag said:
The XF4U had four wing tanks of 273 gallons, so only room for a single .50 and 10 small bombbbays in the wings,along with flotation bags.

Fuselage had two cowl guns

article_xf4u1.jpg


More armament was desired. More wing guns meant some of the wing tanks and other stuff had to go.
They wanted the tank right at the center of gravity, for the least changes in trim and maneuverability. So it got 237 gallons ahead of the pilot, and 114 in the wings. And a terrible blind spot:confused:

You can put a tank behind the pilot, like everyone else did.
The P-51 had one large enough to effect handling when full

Did it need 358 gallons, not counting drop tanks, over Europe or Atlantic?

No.

Late mark Spitfires had 164 gallons, photo recon with guns removed 133 gallons more, Imperial gallons, mind ;) 85 gallons for early.

Me-109 had 88 gallons, Fw-190 110 gallons internal.

Now had they wanted, could have gone with 6 50s( or 4 20mm) in the wings along with 114 gallons of fuel, and 60 gallons behind the pilot and keep the cowl guns and good visibility, and still have more fuel than any other European single engine fighter, since its for FAA and not escorting bombers to Berlin
You've about designed the perfect F4U.:cool:

The only proposed change I'd offer is adding wing leading-edge tanks (per P-38), if possible.

Piping & rating the wing root pylons for 300 USgal (or so) tanks would be good, if you want (need) range for Berlin.
 
It wasn't bad for a 1939 fighter. Maybe better than some, was faster than the P-36 on the same HP, but like the Hawk, limited due to only having a single stage supercharger

But they were held in limbo after FDR blocked sales to Sweden, till 1943

Very few 1939 Fighters did well in 1943, then add in the trouble of how the Chinese AF operated.

Give it a two stage supercharger and I'd say we have something competitive. The prototype looks sharp for its day.

Factory41.jpg
 
Top