This is a big ol' engine. If the throttle is opened to fast at low airspeed the Corsair will roll, due to the torque.
http://vimeo.com/16117810
This is a big ol' engine. If the throttle is opened to fast at low airspeed the Corsair will roll, due to the torque.
http://vimeo.com/16117810
<img src="
" />
This is the type airplane it will be put in
crazy good 
Hubida hubida hubida!!!! 
Torque roll? Guess that's the airplane equivalent of torque steer.
Sounds nice.
If its a 4360 (can't see vid) then it should go into one of these:
F2G - Basically a factory hot rod version of the Corsair. You can see the difference in the length of the engine cowling (two extra rows of cylinder), the intake on the top and of course the different canopy.
Developed to intercept Kamakazi planes, so fast climb (big engine) was a prime requirement. Very few made, but very popular for post war racing.
Aircooled is right that is the proper airframe for that engine. This video shows a F2G at speed. It sounds great.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlpS0VgGqfY
I love big radials. I love Corsairs. You are my new best friend.
Annnnnnnnd... BONER!
jg
Yeah, one reason Corsairs had a nasty reputation in their early years was that inexperienced pilots would mentally get behind the aircraft in a carrier landing, grab a ton of throttle at the last second, and the torque would roll the whole plane over on its back at too low an altitude to recover. I believe pilots had to be told to add throttle gradually in that event, or just keep up mentally.
Between the prototype stage and production, Vought also added a fuel tank between the engine and the cockpit that made the nose very long, obscuring vision during landings. The Navy started pushing them all off on the Marines, who loved them and proved their worth. Once the Navy realized just how good they were, they changed the landing procedure from a long, straight in approach to a gentle curve that kept the carrier in view up until the last second.
Even the standard F4U had a huge speed advantage on the Navy's primary fighter, the Hellcat, so the Corsair was much better suited to intercepting kamikazes. And as stated above, the F2G was the best of the breed, with 1,000 hp more than the F4U and a bubble canopy on the same basic airframe.
Baa Baa blacksheep FTW.
T.J. wrote: Baa Baa blacksheep FTW.
Back when the History Channel was worth watching, I loved catching a rerun of that show.
In reply to Osterkraut:
IMO, Dogfights was the last true "history" style show. The stuff that's on there now isn't bad, but it doesn't fit the channel name.
But that's what H2 is for.
Wow, I have always loved the Corsair and never knew it had a 28 cylinder radial! 
and 
(for my ignorance)
I've heard that the reason why the Corsairs wings are bent is because it was designed around the engine and its huge propeller. Bending the wings allowed enough ground clearance for the prop when the gear was down.
More trivia:
Corsair also called Whistling Death by the Japanese. The plane created a distinctive whistle from the oil cooler inlets (openings at the wing roots) at speed. Demonstrated here:
HappyAndy wrote: I've heard that the reason why the Corsairs wings are bent is because it was designed around the engine and its huge propeller. Bending the wings allowed enough ground clearance for the prop when the gear was down.
It's simpler than that.
The bent wing makes the landing gear shorter and stronger for carrier landings.
Will wrote: Yeah, one reason Corsairs had a nasty reputation in their early years was that inexperienced pilots would mentally get behind the aircraft in a carrier landing, grab a ton of throttle at the last second, and the torque would roll the whole plane over on its back at too low an altitude to recover. I believe pilots had to be told to add throttle gradually in that event, or just keep up mentally. Between the prototype stage and production, Vought also added a fuel tank between the engine and the cockpit that made the nose very long, obscuring vision during landings. The Navy started pushing them all off on the Marines, who loved them and proved their worth. Once the Navy realized just how good they were, they changed the landing procedure from a long, straight in approach to a gentle curve that kept the carrier in view up until the last second.
The British actually developed the carrier landing techniques for the Corsair. They took a wide turn for a good look at the deck, then straightened out at the last second to line it up for landing. After that, the US Navy fell back in love with the plane for carrier use.
Will wrote: Yeah, one reason Corsairs had a nasty reputation in their early years was that inexperienced pilots would mentally get behind the aircraft in a carrier landing, grab a ton of throttle at the last second, and the torque would roll the whole plane over on its back at too low an altitude to recover. I believe pilots had to be told to add throttle gradually in that event, or just keep up mentally.
Spitfires had a habit of this as well.
The first one delivered at Vancouver International Airport during the war was crashed before it saw any use.
Apparently an inexperienced pilot gave it too much throttle on the ground and it turned and ran into a Ford Trimotor that was parked at the time.
aircooled wrote: More trivia: Corsair also called Whistling Death by the Japanese. The plane created a distinctive whistle from the oil cooler inlets (openings at the wing roots) at speed. Demonstrated here: http://youtu.be/FQxb-V-rZqA?t=1m37s
My dad was a tank commander in Korea. One of the few times he talked about it, he said he loved that sound, because he knew air support had arrived. Evidently it was loud enough that he could hear it inside the tank.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF9vZp7e4FI&feature=fvwrel
BTW: Aviation fans, if you don't already know about Zeno's Warbirds, you should. He's saved & encoded every old training film he can find about these great old aircraft. Here's a sample:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4aPk4fledU&feature=related
Website:
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/
About a year ago, I went to a show at Sikorsky Airport and they had a Corsair engine on a similar test stand. They fired it up once an hour and it was very impressive.
I can't help but wonder if you were to re create that engine today, with modern tooling, better cylinder head design etc, what kinda power could you get? and holy crap how much would it cost?
BoostedBrandon wrote: I can't help but wonder if you were to re create that engine today, with modern tooling, better cylinder head design etc, what kinda power could you get? and holy crap how much would it cost?
I think the answer to both questions is "a berkeley-ton"
You'll need to log in to post.
