Jump to content

What is the advantage of the gull wing design?


Recommended Posts

KGW - Gee, that's a shocking loss rate for the Corsairs, particularly when you say nearly 90% were lost in operational and training accidents. Just goes to show what a handful the Corsair was.

How many of the RNZAF Corsairs operated off carriers? Did NZ actually have any carriers during WW2? Did all the Corsairs operate out of NZ, or were they spread around the Pacific?

I'm guessing some of the NZ Corsairs would have operated off British and American carriers?

The full history is Here. 3 of the 13 squadrons were based in NZ & the other 10 in the New Hebrides supporting NZ, US & AUS ground forces. By the time they were operational there were virtually no Japanese aircraft left in the sector. At the end of the war all but 1 squadron which went to Japan were disbanded. None were carrier based. NZ didn't have any carriers. There were plenty of landing accidents & engine failures.

Edited by kgwilson
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see the advantage in gull wings for flying boats, and the wonderful Piaggio P.166B,

[ATTACH type=full" width="408px" alt="1589516361039.png]53206[/ATTACH]

There's one of these parked next to the New England Highway in Uralla.

Much as I admire innovative design, thus one didn't inspire me. Little room inside, a ruddy great wing spar in the way. No good as a meat bomber, with those props downstream of the exit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pusher props operate in disturbed air and are less efficient than tractor types. The engines are generally harder to cool without fan assist. They were operated in PNG and nicknamed PIGS and did not perform well. Nev

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pusher props operate in disturbed air and are less efficient than tractor types. The engines are generally harder to cool without fan assist. They were operated in PNG and nicknamed PIGS and did not perform well. Nev

 

The Cessna 337 is supposed to perform better on the rear engine than the front with one engine inop.

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that's correct,. I know it's better on one of them and I would have expected it to be the tractor engine. Overall there are few pushers . Airflow at the trailing edge of a wing is a mixed bag. especially at lower than cruise speeds Nev

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cessna 337 is supposed to perform better on the rear engine than the front with one engine inop.

The rear engine is more efficient, I used to drive the 337's and they where unique in a few ways, noisy buggers though!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just about every aeroplane has wing diherdral. The only one I've really looked at that doesn't as the Ford Flivver.

https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2014/07/henry-fords-flying-flivver-the-model-t-of-the-air/

 

[ATTACH type=full" alt="1589510489906.png]53202[/ATTACH]

 

As for the Corsair, I can see that the gull wing would reduce the overhead space when the wings are folded.

 

As for allowing the wing to join the fuselage to join the fuselage at 90 degree, neither the Corsaid not Stuka have their wings attached at 90 degrees. Look at the 3-views.

 

from the article...Almost certainly the straight wing as making it “one of the worst aircraft he ever flew”

 

“After Charles Lindbergh’s popularity exploded following his transatlantic flight, Henry Ford invited him to visit Ford Airport and fly the Flivver in August of 1927. Lucky Lindy didn’t share Brooks’ enthusiasm for the litte plane, later describing it as ” one of the worst aircraft he ever flew”. I guess that one man’s “think a little faster” is another man’s uncontrollably dangerous.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dihedral will increase roll stability. So does sweep back used for another reason mostly.eg it enables higher M crit operation. Too much of a good?? thing can cause adverse effects like Dutch roll that can only be controlled by gyro controlled yaw dampers. I prefer a plane to have nearer neutral stability as it will stay where you put it "better". Too much stability equals less control authority/response.

Some of the best earlier load carrying wings had no dihedral. ie Fokker highwing monoplanes . PBY Catalina AND the Ryan built for Lindburgh the "Spirit of St Louis". etc. Nev

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that one man’s “think a little faster” is another man’s uncontrollably dangerous.”

Yep...A flying workmate described the RV6 as twitchy and he hated it. I had a fly of one and thought it it was beautifully responsive and loved it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A high winged aircraft might achieve the same stability without dihedral as a low wing with it due to the pendulum effect of the airframe hanging from the wing.

 

Almost certainly the straight wing as making it “one of the worst aircraft he ever flew”

 

Probably no doubt about that - low wing aircraft with no dihedral, or did it have some? But Lindberg flew either the first or second protptype

 

From the pictures in this video, there seems to be some. Flivver 2A (Flivver 3218) The third prototype was larger with a 22 ft (6.7 m) wingspan, had a fabric-covered steel frame, featured wing struts, a 50-gallon fuel tank, a dihedral increase, and a custom 143-cubic-inch (2,340 cm3)-Ford designed, horizontally opposed two-cylinder engine using Wright Whirlwind components that produced 40-horsepower (30 kW).

 

 

1589695155284.png.97be47e7cbd876a1df1f5efbf2951d2f.png 1589696075964.png.cc07cda80a7e16f164508853af72f348.png

 

The video shows the Flivver 2A during an attempt to win a long distance record for light planes in 440 to 880 lb (200 to 400 kg) "C" class. The race was set from Ford Field in Dearborn Michigan to Miami, Florida. The attempt was stopped by bad weather at Titusville, Florida, where the propeller was bent, but still achieved a 972 mi (1,564 km) record. The pilot placed wooden toothpicks in the vent holes on his fuel cap to prevent moist air from entering and condensing overnight. On February 25, they took off to complete the flight, circled out over the Atlantic where the motor quit and he went down off Melbourne, Florida. Investigation of the wreckage disclosed that the toothpicks had plugged the fuel cap vent holes, causing an engine stoppage.

Edited by old man emu
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The effect of dihedral is not the same as having a highwing. You get some pendulum effect with a highwing but dihedral acts differently when a slip occurs due to wingdrop. Nev

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My favourite aircraft ever....I have yet to see one in the flesh though.

There’s a Corsair at Tyabb. Just recently had a bit of a repair job after a wheels up but flying again.

 

The best account of Flying and fighting in Corsairs that I’ve read is “Carrier Pilot”, an autobiography by Norman Hanson. Really well worth adding it to your library.

 

the Yanks found them a handful but the Brits tamed them for carrier work.

 

kaz

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here ya go M61A1: old poster in the hangar I share:

[ATTACH type=full" alt="Corsair.jpg]53295[/ATTACH]

Thanks. Every time I see an F4U on the cover of Classic Wings I buy a copy, even better if it has a resto article. I’ve had about 4 or 5 foamy Corsair RC models. I started building a standoff scale one for 95:55 some years ago but it hasn’t got far and I’ve rebuilt 4 other aircraft in the meanwhile.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

KGW - Gee, that's a shocking loss rate for the Corsairs, particularly when you say nearly 90% were lost in operational and training accidents. Just goes to show what a handful the Corsair was.

How many of the RNZAF Corsairs operated off carriers? Did NZ actually have any carriers during WW2? Did all the Corsairs operate out of NZ, or were they spread around the Pacific?

I'm guessing some of the NZ Corsairs would have operated off British and American carriers?

 

the Mark 1 was the pilot killer. Wing dropping close to stall or on sudden application of power for a go-around were early problems. Mark 2 onwards more stable and better undercarriage. US Marines weren’t happy and preferred their Hellcats. The Brits and NZ Corsair F4’s ended up doing a lot of carrier work in the islands and very effectively, too.

 

Pretty quick on the flat (tad faster than a Mustang) but amazing acceleration in a dive at over 4 tonnes empty and up to 6 tonnes loaded, achieved speeds of up to 550 kn before damage to controls which made it a dive and zoom Zero killer (But not a dog fighter). The .50 were very effective as Killer Caldwell discovered in the P40’s and lamented that they weren’t fitted to Spitfires...4x.50

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to remember these young pilots didn't have a lot of hours or get in depth instruction on a pretty demanding aircraft. They learned on the job or died doing it. Some must have flown with Yanks in the New Hebrides or suchplace as there are stories of Yanks taxiing out with canopy open downing a whiskey bottle and chucking it out the side. One book recounted how the "Author" found out about what we now know as "P" factor and it saved his life. He didn't describe or name it . Just how he got out of the situation and it was the only way. They weren't told this stuff as it wasn't fully understood by anyone in those times. It wasn't highlighted in the book either but he understood that the plane needed quick, positive and extreme control action. He was the sole survivor of his 3 brothers. That wasn't uncommon. .They were also ferried long distances over water. Nev

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

That is a nice example. The Westalad Lysander wasn't one but from some angles looks like a gull wing due to it narrowing at the fuselage.

 

1591674438938.png.c4a357b78b2ddeba705b975a99e7849e.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...