THE GROUNDHOG: The Navy's First Afterburner Fighter Had An Embarrassing Performance Problem
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 июн 2024
- In the fall of 1945 two design teams, one at Vought, the other at North American Aviation were engaged in government contracts to create first generation jet fighters.
Both were using wind tunnels to accurately model the likely performance of their fighters. Post-war cuts were already biting into military budgets. Exceptional performance would be needed to secure meaningful orders.
Both manufacturers began to realise that their straight winged fighter prototypes were unlikely to have exceptional performance. The aerodynamic limitations of straight wings wedded to the limited thrust of early jet engines were a major impediment.
The management at North American Aviation swallowed their brave pills and went with the swept wing. The result was the F-86 Sabre, the best fighter of its generation and one of the finest combat aircraft ever built.
Vought decided to stick with what they knew. Their aircraft was the F6U Pirate. Its story is one of exceptional ingenuity, unflinching commitment, unbridled hope and, ultimately, ignominious failure.
I hope you enjoy this video. The Pirate was in some ways only a couple of decisions away from greatness. But aren't we all?
I read a comment in a book on early USN jets that went something like " and after crippling a generation of USN aircraft, Westinghouse went back to making washing machines " :-)))
And radars ...
The Westing house and General Electric companies were given the Engine Contracts because they weren't Pratt and Whitney or Allison and Wright who were Piston Engine Kings and swamped like Grumman the results were mixed GE emerged the Winner.
And toasters….which allegedly produced more heat than their engines did.
Surely their most telling product is air brakes (as used on the railways).
@@Archie2c Both were in the (steam) turbine branch, so it's not that far off the mark
60s jets: must be supersonic, extremely maneuverable, and carry a large payload over a long range
50s jets: don't explode (optional)
😂
"Who would've thought that balsa wood isn't good jet outlet material" is a sentence I thought I'll never hear
I am a flight test engineer at Patuxent River. In my 40 years of aviation I’ve been involved in the testing of the P-3, KC-130J, E-3B, V-22, MH-60S, AH-1Z and MQ-4C. What a blast! I still can’t believe I get paid to do a job I dreamt of as a kid and play with the coolest toys in the world. I’m actually bummed retirement is at hand but it’s time to turn over the keys to the next generation of testers.
What was your favorite aircraft to work on? The worst? Why?
that sounds like an awesome career!
if you don't mine me asking, is this through the military, or contracted jobs through companies?
@@fulccrum2324 I am a federal civil servant for the DoD.
@@MM22966 I forgot the P-8A, Poseidon. That would be the worst I’ve ever worked on by far! Why? Because it’s a civilian airliner forced into a military role. It wasn’t built for the rigors it can be expected to see over its lifetime. Every time it failed at something the program just changed the requirement to benefit Boeing. When I found critical issues with the aircraft both Boeing and the program refused to fix and said they’d accept the risk. The best? Wow. I’m going to lean towards the KC-130J. When I went to that program I already had over 3500 hours of flight time on other aircraft so I’d been doing it for a long time. But when I walked up onto the flight deck my jaw dropped. I swore I was on the Starship Enterprise. Lockheed had done a beautiful job on it. It was easy to work with, it was f’ing powerful and did everything we asked of it, unlike the P-8. The P-3 is a beauty as well mainly cause I started as a wide eyed 18 year old airman flying as a naval Aircrewman on it. Lockheed does aircraft well.
@@kaptainkaos1202 "Lockheed does aircraft well" Except for the P-7 LRAACA. Ahem.
You know what they say about the firstborn child. As parents, they are the ones on whom you make all your mistakes. F6U Pirate to F7U Cutlass to F8U Crusader. A lineage that suggests lessons learned. Another great deep dive into shallow waters. Bravo!
After the F4U Vought went through an extended loosing streak. The F5U, F6U, and F7U were all major failures. Then Vought recovered brilliantly with the F8 and the A7.
F7u looks super cool though
Amazing that Vought even survived after the failure of the Pirate & the Cutlass
I love your deep dive stories of obscure designs that deserve a mention, and are otherwise often overlooked in the history of aviation....thanks for posting 😊
Crusader might be a good one especially viewed from it's jump in performance over what the Navy had been flying . I think it was like 500 mph faster than the plane it replaced . J57 was the first 10K thrust engine / 5'ish years ahead of the J79 . The British liked to do high altitude bombing practice on the carriers which made the Navy mad because they couldn't reach them ... then one day the Brits were greeted by F8's doing *vertical* passes on them surprise !
The J79 was 50% to 100% more powerful than the J57. They aren't both in the same class just because they both make more than 10K lbs. More importantly the J79 weighs less than 4,000lbs while the J57 weighs over 5,000lbs. The J57 is a great engine and was a significant step, but it's not really the same class as the J79 which was a real breakthrough design.
I would like to see the F-8 covered just because I like it, but I also feel that it tends to get underestimated because the F-4 overshadowed it in the end. Not forgotten, but people kind of see it as a side show, while in reality it was one of the newest and highest performing planes in the world for years, really a hot ship. Just because it's not Mach 2 doesn't mean it wasn't pretty incredible, and it was still decently agile. And no one makes a big enough deal or the fact that it managed to have a long range and even carry bombs and rockets, but they never used drop tanks on it, at all. It did everything on internal fuel alone. Which is a quite amazing achievement, especially for the time. They made one is the fastest and highest performing jets ever made at the time, with an unusually long range and good payload, also capable of safe carrier operations, decent radar and IR, missiles, guns, a very powerful new engine, and they did all this only using the internal fuel tanks, so it was always capable of maximum performance. I dont think anyone has pulled that off before or since. Although I think the A-7 also frequently didn't use drop tanks, even though they didn't have the variable incidence wing to worry about.
@@justforever96 I found an article comparing them .
Sounds like this plane was the definition of trial-and-error. I have to salute Vought for tanking all the headaches in the middle of a company-wide move, even if the end result was a fairly disastrous product.
More like trial-and-Terror :D
I am very much enjoying your exploration of these first generation jet aircraft and the issues presented to their design teams.
I had an interest in these first generation jets from my teens. I was taken to air shows to see some of them fly (when airshows were airshows). As an air cadet a number of our lessons in the Principles of Flight covered some of the issues here. Visits to RAF stations would usually unearth an airframe or two tucked away in the corner of a hanger or an airfield. As a young Brit, building the inevitable Airfix first generation jets and less inevitably some of the American types from the likes of Revell.
Your research and depth of coverage appeals to me. Thank you for your videos.
Revd ( Sqn Ldr ) ( retired ).
"Both bad, and not good." Wow! I think the whole plane was a "piece of kit." Great understated narration!
You're my favorite channel in this format, the obscure and underappreciated birds are finally getting their due.
The all flying tail of the F-86 did not allow removal of the leading edge slats, it allowed superior pitch control at transonic speed when the normal shock attaching to the horizontal tail impeded elevator authority. Removal of the leading edge slats in favor of a wider chord wing was a later upgrade that increased lift at higher speeds with some loss of lift for takeoff an landing.
I think some variants of the Sabre also added a notched wing in place of the slats. The various wing configurations of the Sabre/Fury could merit their own video.
@@paulfrantizek102 Interesting - I have never seen or read of a production F-86 with such a notch. Perhaps it was the Fury?
Sounds a little like the Jet Provost Mk.3 - variable noise, constant thrust and only left the ground because the world is round
Instantly click now when I see your videos bud, good job and keep it up.
I enjoy this channel so much! Thanks for diving in to all these forgotten fighters.
Goodness. Such a great episode. I have this aircraft in two or three of my books, I never clearly understood the nature of the problems. You really feel for the Vought team. It's not like they weren't trying. I have similar feelings about the North American team that designed the YF-107 and the XB-70, brilliant ideas that didn't make the cut, although in the case of the latter two planes, I think it's clear that they were not just innovative, but were genuine performers too.
Anyway, just a really great episode: entertaining but substantive. Well done.
Thank you for sharing this story in such an entertaining manner! I was stationed at Edwards Air Force Base in 1998-2001 and 2011-2012, so my family appreciates your comments about that wonderfully desolate place.
Another plane I never heard of. Great vid. Love this rare stuff 🎉
Vought were pioneers of trying to solve complex problems in unique ways.
The XF5U "Flying Pancake", XF6U Pirate, and F7U Cutlass were very innovative , but were victims of being severely underpowered. Their predecessor, the F4U "bent-wing" bird Corsair was the fastest aircraft in the world, until the heavier P-47 entered service with its larger and more complex turbo-supercharger.
As you state in the last section @27:46 , had the Pirate been given swept wing treatment, like the FJ-1 that became the Sabre/FJ-2 with all flying tail, it would have been a "barn, burner" vs the F9F-3 Panther and FH-1 Phantoms. It would have been a legitimate contender over the Skies of Korea's "MiG Alley". Perhaps John Glenn, the "MiG Mad Marine" and future astronaut, would have gotten his MiG-15 kills in a USMC swept wing F6U-4 Pirate II rather than USAF Sabre?
Vought got it right with the F8U when the J57 turbojet, both Collier Trophy winning designs, and when mated together delivered World Leading Performance that raised the bar for Fighter Aircraft until 3rd Generation Fighter Aircraft like the F-4 Phantom II with advanced radar and weapon systems entered service. Even then the F-8 Crusader was a better pure dogfighter than the F-4 over the skies of Vietnam.
For some reason I had confused this aircraft with the Douglas Skypirate torpedo bomber which also never saw service. I wasn't familiar at all with this particular jet. Great to see this series talking about how US Navy fighters evolved after the War.
Great video...👍
Thanks for making videos on the rarer forgotten aircraft.
It's hard to go past the fact it took so long to take off. Surely everyone- including the Navy- should have had all their alarm bells going off right there!
I really liked some of their ideas though.Easy servicing was awesome and removable wing tips is a good solution to a potentially expensive/heavy problem.The Metalite seemed to work well too
Thanks for a very interesting one. I can`t wait long for the next one
I LOLed IRL at "not only was that bad, but it wasn't good" 🤣
I’m really liking your channel. I really enjoy the perspective you’re bringing to the community. Nice work.
4:05 very interesting that the photo you used at 4 minutes in with the Pirate & Corsair also has a Northrop flying wing landing behind them if you look closely.
I saw that, I thought I was seeing things!
Two exceptions to the larger/heavier were the Grumman F8F Bearcat and the Douglas A4D (later A-4) Skyhawk. Both were smaller and lighter than their predecessors and contemporaries.
Yeah, I think most of us have seen those before. It's a trend, not a law of nature. And the F8F was only smaller and lighter because it had a very specific role in mind, to be a perfect fleet interceptor. The only way to get more performance from the available engines was to make the plane smaller and lighter, at the cost of range and armament and equipment. They wanted it to climb very fast and reach very high speeds, all else was subordinate to that. And if it had been a great approach they would have stuck with it. It turns out that range and equipment and payload actually is very important, especially for a Navy fighter. They didn't have kamikazes to deal with any more, so the F8F went away.
Awesome! Thanks!! I'm enjoying learning more about the lesser know aircraft from this era.
Superb presentation - thank you !
Both the Pirate and the Cutlass had the misfortune to be the recipient of an absolute dog of an engine (and they weren't the only ones). There were problems with both that a reliable, gutsy powerplant would have gone a long way toward fixing.
Yes! The Cutlass was such an eye catcher for me. I just wish the J85s were around for it!
The horrid debacle of the failed J40 engine killed many promising designs, and nearly killed others. A few great designs transcended it, being able to take other better engines.
I love the way you differentiate paper statistics with actual real-world performance. And the jokes about the later are killers!
28:33 excellent detail in this yes they tried to bite off more than they could chew but they were groundbreaking and I'm sure they were highly useful in the future incarnations
Loving the history lessons.
Good stuff NAPFATG.
Very interesting video.
Great video. It is a small jewel.
The presentations are always good. I don't agree on too much tech on the Pirate though. Bad design choices yes. The afterburner engine was a consequence of too little thrust to start with and a knee jerk to overcome with AB. 4 x 20mm was the Navy norm (Corsair) . Trying to get away with too small a wing swept or not looks to have been its main failing. Badly designed and wrong sized wing looks to be at its core and CV should have been able to build a wing that did both low and high speed (Corsair again). The ME-262 wing sweep was a CG aspect not Mach (the first papers on swept wing was in the 30s and in Italy as I recall).
yes, the 262 lucked out with swept wing because engineers needed to shift weight for CG. She got tricycle gear because the jet exhaust on tail taildragger 262 melted the airport and runway surface.
Thanks. Good job.
Not previously heard of this -- but its design isn't a million miles away from an RC model plane I once designed. That also suffered badly from Dutch Roll, and needed to be considerably lengthened to stabilise it!
A very nice documentary.
It must have been so cool to be the first to take off and land from a carrier. I will never forget my first carrier landing.
Top 5 Aviation channel
11:01 😂 turns into a submarine on contract with water. That's was one hell of a left handed compliment.
I'll admit to being new to the channel, but I didn't notice quite so much biting sarcasm. Not complaining, mind - that unique mix of bureaucracy and empirical results you get in the procurement of military hardware lends itself well to that mode.
At least Vought made their big mistakes (and learned from them early on)...still, kind of amazing from the company that eventually produced the Crusader. Waiting for your Cutlass video--that should be brutal! 😎
Heyyyy, be nice to the Cutlass! Picture one with two J85s!
@@ronjon7942 I agree; those early engines promised more than they could deliver.
Great channel! I feel like a short outro would make the end of the video much less abrupt, but always good stuff here
Great vid.
Could you please do one comparing the Mirage III/5/50 with the later 2000, with perhaps a curve into the Nesher/Dagger, Kfir and Cheetah? I’d love to understand the differences in aerodynamics, performance and avionics across what looks like very similar airframes. Cheers
That would definitely be interesting. I can atleast tell you one of the major differences between Kfir and the Cheetah is powerplants. Kfir J-79 and Cheetah kept Atar.
Wait, there's a jet named cheetah?
@@minera7595 South African updated Mirage (III if I recall correctly).
@@paulfrantizek102
Wow, I learned today that South Africa licensed built their jet, that's quite an achievement! Thanks for the info
Don’t forget this series is called “not a pound for air to ground”. The Mirage 5 and 50 and Nesher/Dagger series had considerable air to ground capability and usage, therefore would be best covered elsewhere.
very good video
I find it a little ironic that they are willing to incorporate experimental concept (of that time) such as ejection seat or afterburner, but not swept wing, which was already documented...
(Talking about swept wing though, I heard its linage successor, The swept wing F7U Cutlass, was also a dangerous plane to handle, it will be neat to see you cover about it in the future to know how bad it was exactly)
About the wingform, aerodynamics is much more difficult to research than creating a rocket for a seat. Remember that at that time they didn't have quick, accurate and handable computing, nor gifted scientists to overcome the impediment. In addition they were very perplexed by the mathematics of the German RLM (Reich Luftfahrt Ministerium, ministry of State Aviation) since their mathematical level was (and still is) very low. After that time they started to catch up, but still, in their books until all these years, you get some errors that they shouldn't exist. P.S. I am engineer.
@@christopherneufelt8971
I see, thanks for giving me insights to this!
@@christopherneufelt8971wait what do you mean by lower maths level (in genuinely curious)
@@starliner2498 Hi Starliner. Here in Europe, German, Germanic, Hungarian and Norse Countries, the focus is in mathematical Analysis for applied mathematics, while in the Anglosphere the focus is Calcululs for applied mathematics. In both geographical domains, they study both of these foci, but it turns out, that when you make research in natural processes, e.g. fluid mechanics, you need to make an exact soluble model, which might not be computationally solvable, in order to understand what you can allow and what you can approximate. E.g. you model a spring with a first order polynomial while an exact model might be a fifth order polynomial. The European view, supports understanding but slow scientific development and more slow time to market. The Angloview, supports partial understanding but relativelly rapid scientific development and short time to market.
Yes the moniker attached to the Cutlass when it was in service was "Gutless". I believe this was because it was also woefully underpowered. But the Cutlass had a host of design choices that made it a very difficult aircraft to operate from carriers.
Interesting and humorous too. A winning combination. 👍🏻😆
'Since this was both bad AND not good...' Well, you never want THAT combination in anything you're doing.
When you think about it, it's pretty crazy that essentially the first attempt to build a real jet fighter (we won't count the Airacomet) was actually so successful and had such a long service history and became of the the legends, both of the F-80 and the T-33, when they had such a hard time coming up with the follow up acts. I guess it's because the F-80 was just the ultimate extension of the tech that already existed, they didn't try to break new ground aside from the engine.
The Pirate Almost looks like an A-10 up front
I guess the "Hog" nickname wasn't a coincidence haha
The fuselage certainly has the profile of a submarine...
Once again, an excellent and very informative video! I'd never heard of this aircraft.
One question I have though, is the image of Helldivers on the USS Yorktown, shown as being taken in 1942. That year struck me as being a bit too early to see Helldivers in squadron service on carriers.
Wiki has this same picture on their site, but shows the date as being 1943, ( which going from the development timing, it would appear more plausible. )
I could easily be incorrect, so I'm curious to see what is right.
Either way, I truly do find these videos interesting and intriguing. Thank you!
F-6U is exactly how I imagine if the Turbojet version of the P-47 made into production phase. Ultimately Seversky and his team found out that the existing P-47 was more suitable with the piston engine, later they decided to completely altered the design and thus P-84(later redesignated F-84) was born.
Also, there is a mix powered version of P-47 that has a axial flow jet engine with the modified piston engine but the USAF was not interested in the design. F-84 on the other hand, was intended to serve the USAAF as a air superiority fighter to rival the ME262(which never happened), but ended up gradually replace the WW2 era piston powered fighters while the USAF was created in the late 1940s. Later it served well as CAS aircraft and managed to shot down 8 MIG-15s in the Korean War.
This is a very nicely-done video! Superb pictures make up for the lack of film clips, your narration is flawless, and the absence of distracting “quasi-music” makes for a particularly relaxing, enjoyable and informative presentation!
It was a wonderful, deep, divine story of obscure designs. lovable US airplanes ✈️ history lessons
Can't help but see the lineage for the F7 A8 etc.
At least the afterburner worked at times to increase thrust which is more than you could say for Curtis Wright's design for the license built Saphire aka J65-. . . . But then at least the F11F didn't need it to get off the deck of a carrier.
Can you do a video on the F7U Cutlass?
Yes please.
Great video. Love these obscure subjects.
Given the recent trend of covering the US Navy's early jets, are you planning to cover Vought's successor to this plane (the F7U Cutlass)?
I haven't laughed so hard in a long time, thanks!
I have not looked lately, but I knew were a Vought Sign still was on a Rockwell International Downey period Building. I grew up next door even when we moved early 70's, then the same street AGAIN, just other side. Think I will GO TAKE a FRESH LOOK? just down the street from my adult home a few blocks.
Lots of HISTORY there! I sat inside SCORCED Re Entry Gemini and Apollo Capsules as a kid in the 60's and 70's smelled like Ozon and cooked Circuit Board before we knew what Cooked Circuit Boards smelled like?
Some of the statements in the narration are simply savage! LOL
The Vought XF-6U Pirate: Let's keep it small, straight and laminated.
I think they miss out on the more Snazzy exotic name .... The Wombat 😉
Looking back, this was new technology and everyone was having teething problems, some found out sooner, the military broadcast seeds to see which ones took root. Look at development of piston engines from 1920 to 1945.
Great Video. While the first made afterburner, the L133 had them on paper - and maybe the test engine
Given its ditching performance maybe it should have been called the Seaview.
Interesting take on the invention of the afterburner. Although i would think it can be traced to experimental motorjets.
Those tail extensions look terrible. I wonder if the wide twin vertical stabilisers on the Cutlass were designed with the same line of thinking.
Looks like the pilot had great observation of their surroundings being so far forward.
Funny enough, the pilot was very far forward on the F7U-1, but because of the ground angle, viability was still terrible, leading to change in the F7U-2
23:08 I got $100 says it wasn't Memphis but Millington Tennessee which is North and a little East of Memphis itself. Millington Naval Air Station. Two A5 Vigilantes gate guards were awesome to see as you drove by the gate.😮 Probably still there I hope.
I can't tell you how many aircraft I seen at their fire response training area which was right off the main East/West highway which ran right along the South edge of what was the base itself. Aircraft burned to flinders but the cockpit area itself was pristine most of the time. Them boys knew how to do their job.
Even drove by as the airplanes were burning just a hundred yards or so away and the fire engines were hell bent for leather to get at them. I suspect that was the fate of the Pirates themselves along with a bunch of other Navy planes. Sacrificed so that the firefighters could learn the best way to keep the pilot alive in a serious emotional event.
Wish someone would do a history of Millington NAS. Not much there now except a bunch of paper pushers.
Having an interest in building card models I'm pleased to see that there have been at least two versions of this lesser known aircraft available. One in 1/33rd scale and a bundle of three versions in 1/100th. The three great things about card modeling are 1) At 1/33rd scale it at least a magnitude cheaper than plastic. 2) Because of greatly reduced development costs unusual subjects can be done even in large scales. 3) If you scan the parts sheets you have a back-up if you mess up. Just print more parts 😊
It is pretty crazy to think that the F4F wasn't actually the primary fighter at the start of the war, it was the _brand new_ fighter that was just starting to enter squadron service. Most squadrons were happy to get them eventually. And they were still considered modern and fairly competitive fighters for several years, from most of what i have read outside of a few famous quotations. I feel like the US had this tendency to more or less scapegoat the equipment whenever things weren't going well. They didn't want to seem like they were blaming the troops, it was easier to say "yeah,e are just getting best because this damn fighter is no good, but don't worry, we got a new one on the way".
My controversial opinion is that the US could have won the war with the F4F, if need be. They would have had to train to work with its weaknesses, and you take advantage of the strengths, and probably had higher losses. But it was good enough and could have been improved more.
Not that there was any reason at all to do that, but it could have been done.
This looks like a close cousin of the FJ-1 Fury.
Never heard of this Vort designer, hopefully it's fascinating
Vought.
I've heard of the Pirate. XF6U-1
I'd like to see footage of a 15 minute engine swap!
I've done a car in an hour, from pushing it in to driving it out, but I get to skip torquing every bolt, since cars don't fly.
Their footage needs to end with the plane taking off, or I don't believe their claim.
If it only required removing six bolts and disconnecting the electrical plus fuel lines, you could do your car engine in 15 minutes, too.
@@dbs555 it almost was that easy by the 3rd engine swap…
2 electrical connectors, 2 fuel lines, (lift it) 2 radiator hoses, exhaust, 8 er 9 mount bolts, engine out the bottom & repeat backwards ending with fill fluids & bleed cooling system…and add unzip&reziptie, a lot
Iirc, that was awhile ago. The zip ties made things faster, and I don't think they're used on planes.
This one derserves the F105 moniker THUD
F86 is beautiful too.
If it had a tendency to roll onto its back it should have been the Tom Cat because ours does that a lot
What was barrier development program?
Having them inject powerful combat stimulants would be pretty useful. Also posions, drugs, and so on. They're great for enhancing the capabilities of the user but against direct combat stand it could definitely struggle. I mean just imagine running on them like running on an airport mocing walkway. Using them to enhance punches by propelling your arm, increasing your leverage, or giving you the ability to leap great distances.
3:45 is that YB-35 landing in the back ground?
11:30 Is that Yager on the left?
So it is Friday!
Why the Hell did they entertain this Thing ? , its intakes were tiny for any ingress of Air , and Balsa went out with the Mosquito ..and yes I have never heard of it , but a great Vid anyway.
I don't think Vought was "sticking with what it knew" with this airplane. For one thing they banished the poor visibility of the F4U by pushing the cockpit as far forward as possible. For another they tried innovative composite skin surface materials. I don't think there was yet any appetite for swept wings on carrier jets. Even the successful first generation Navy jets like the F9F were straight wing, so we can't blame failure of this design on lack of wing sweep.
Only swept wing Naval aircraft I can recall is the AD3 and Vigilante. However they were large wing aircraft. Even the Tomcat wings were swept forward for takeoff and landing noting the airframe was a lifting body.
@@jedibusiness789 You missed a lot of swept wing Navy jets if those are the only two you can recall. This channel recently mentioned the FJ-4 Fury, this video mentions the F7U Cutlass, there was the F-11 Tiger, the F8U Corsair, the . . . well, you get the idea.
Laughs in 1950s Air Force.
@@MM22966I have no idea what that useless comment means, and I don't need to know. Why don't you go troll somewhere else?
@@gort8203 I will! Klatuu Borata Nictu!
0:59 where is the P-51?
Or is it just a laminar flow wing?
With such tiny air intake area, I'm surprised that engine developed any power at all.
The afterburner restrictions sounds a lot like the F-35A.
Reminds me of a warthog
I've never understood how the swept wing was some super brilliant concept that only some genius German could come up with. No aeronautical engineer at NACA, Farnborough, University, or in industry ever thought "what if we angle the wing back?" I mean, try to make a paper airplane that doesn't have a partly, or fully swept wing. Of all the wing shapes that were experimented with, ONLY straight wings? It's not like some super counter intuitive or complicated design.
Straight wings have a number of advantages especially those skilled in the art don’t want to give up ( easy to fly, safe take off). As far as I understand the maths, the advantage of sweep comes in with a square law ( I mean in the same way you lose wing span . This is theory ). So in the experiment it may be hidden by measurement errors. You need to be bold. B787 has quite a sweep.
Sweeping wings was done on the german stuff largely for COM reasons but also strength, literally everyone knew what it would do naca and nasa just had no way to make the kind of power where it did much until the 50s
Honestly im not sure im okay with calling a mustangs wings straight they are trapezoidal
Spitifires are eliptical as are p47 wings
The modern 30ish sweep doesnt do much until mach 1.1 or so but it also cuts drag
the Pirate also highlights the challenges of an engineer design team transitioning from designing slower traditional airplanes to transonic and supersonic designs. It's a different set of design parameters than they were used to, and not only that but they had to invent the new criteria as they went as their were not yet many books at the time on how to design high speed aircraft as nobody had yet successfully done a lot of it yet.
And Vought later made the F-8 Crusader, the first supersonic navy fighter, and a VERY successful airframe that was a great dogfighter, very fast, and was evolved into a Mach 3+ design and an all weather attack aircraft, and enjoyed a LONG service life.
Thank you! Food for both thought AND research!
In the words of the Philosopher Bill Murray - You can’t underestimate a Fighter named the Groundhog because no matter how you shoot at it it will keep flying again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again……………
Didn’t get past all the adverts
Time stamp 15:15 HAHAHAHAHA LMAO 😂, Great comment on a classic car!!
I mean Pirate is logical after Corsair. Not sure if Buccaneer and Privateer were already taken at that point, but there are only so many words for the same idea. They had to start on pirate weapons by the Cutlass. And i guess they decided the name was a jinx by the time they switched to the Crusader. And then back again.
Hadn't occured to me before how out of place the Crusader name was. Where did they get that from?