In article ,
(DJFawcett26) writes:
The
decision made with the Corsair was to reduce the Interference Drag by
acheiving, as much as possible, a wing-fuselage joint perpendicular to
the fuselage, (The inverted gull wing) with a minimum of filleting,
thus reducing Parasite Drag.

Actually, the major driver for the inverted gull was finding a way to make
clearance for the HUGE prop so runways and carrier decks didn't get chopped up.

Sorry, but the evidence points in the other direction. There was
nothing particularly outstanfing wrt teh Corsair's propeller diamter -
13'1" for the 3-blade prop, and 13'2" for teh 4-blade - the F6F
Hellcat - no inverted gull wing - low mid-wing, in fact, had no
problems operating in the same environment. - in fact, around the
boat, it was a much better airplane than the Corsair.

The Vought TBU Seawolf, intended to be the successor of the TBF/TBM
Torpedo Bomber, had a mid-wing, and a 13'3" diameter prop.
The low-winged Martin AM-1 attack airplane had a 14'8" diameter
propeller.

The mid-wing P-47 had a 13'2" prop. (And in fact, was flown off of,
but not landed on, carriers in the Pacific, during several of teh
Island-hopping invasions.)

The low-wing Hawker Typhoon & Tempest had a 14' diameter propeller.

The fact is, given the expected speed range of the airplanes, and the
propeller RPM (_Not_ Engine RPM - these are geared engines, all with
a of between 1200 - 1500, a 13' propeller diameter gives the best
advance ratio range for efficiency.

As demonstrated by the small selection of examples above, it was
certainly possible to design an airplane to fit the Corsair's
requirements without resorting to in inverted gull wing to make it
work.

All the drag reduction trades and benefits were a natural fall out of the
design.

Keep in mind, the wings could have been put have been put at the 90 and 270
position and achieved the same benefit. But the prop would have went chop,
chop. Also, the inverted gull was not the best actor in stability and control.

And in fact, it was, on larger aircraft (The TBU, which, interestingly
emough, was the Vought project that followed the Corsair), without any
problems. Stbility wasn't a problem for the Corsair - the objective
numbers Cnalpa, Cnbeta - the Stability deriviatices show that it was
in the middle range for contemprary fighters. Teh stall behavior was
worse than that of the Wildcat & Hellcat, but better than the SBD
Dauntless, the Fw 190, or the P-51. Much of the of Corsair's Torque
Roll tencency at low speeds was corrected by a cuff on the leading
edge of the inboard right wing.

I am not saying that ultimately it was not good, but even then the spins and
the recoveries were an occurence to behold.

From contemporary reports, and objectively obtained data by the NACA,
not any more so than otehr WW 2 fighters, and much less than some.
(You do _not_ want to spin a P-51 with a full fuselage tank, for
example, or a Spitfire with the drop tank in place.)

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster