Corsair at Fleet Air Arm Museum

The easiest way up onto a lot of tail dragger wings is by stepping onto a mainwheel and then onto wing,dunno if you can do it on a corsair though !!They are quite an imposing beast:D

Thanks for that JS.
Your comment about them having a step in the starboard/inboard flap is interesting as the Yeovilton example doesn’t appear to have one. The inboard flaps on both sides have a considerable loss of paint suggesting high wear through access.

Roger Smith.

Thanks for that JS, nice piece of film – although I thought it a shame there isn’t a bit more of the wing un-folding at the start. Did I see that one was unfolding with flaps up and another with flaps down?

Roger Smith.

Thanks for the reply Roger I actually cut that part out so it wouldn’t be too long of a video. All 4 Corsairs lined up and unfolded them at the same time. One interesting thing was all 4 folded at different speeds and intervals. The Museums F4U-1 unfolded evenly and fast, the FG1D in the opening of the clip was even and very slow, and the F4U-4 unfolded the left wing completely before the right even started, I guess it could just be the way the have the system set up. Oh, and yes both the F4U-1 and the FG1D started with the flaps down but the F4U-4 started with the flaps up. They have a step in the right inboard flap for climbing up when the flaps are down. Here are some static shots from the show.

Thanks bazv – hadn’t thought of that. It’s still a fairly unusual configuration though. (thinks – Miles M.20, ??)

Roger Smith.

Hi Roger
I this country I think that particular fashion came from the Magister problem where one could run out of elevator authority just by yawing the a/c.I think the t/p configuration of most of the british trainers up to the JP might be a legacy from that.I am sure there are people on here with more detailed knowledge of the ‘Maggie’ problem!!

cheers baz

Thanks bazv – hadn’t thought of that. It’s still a fairly unusual configuration though. (thinks – Miles M.20, ??)

Roger Smith.

What was the reason that the fin/rudder was set so far forward (compared to tailplane/elevators)? My simple brain says – further forward = less moment = more surface area required = more weight. Anyone know why?

Roger Smith.

Hi Roger
Normally this to keep the T/P and elevators clear of the fin/fuselage so that the elevators do not get blanked by the fin/fuselage during spin recovery,or indeed to help keep the TP/elevators effective during sideslip/yaw.

cheers baz

Thanks for that JS, nice piece of film – although I thought it a shame there isn’t a bit more of the wing un-folding at the start. Did I see that one was unfolding with flaps up and another with flaps down?

Couple of other observations/questions:
Never noticed before that take off is almost a three-pointer – the main wheels coming off almost the same time or very soon after the tail wheel. I suppose that some of that might be due to the greater travel on the main u/c legs though.
What was the reason that the fin/rudder was set so far forward (compared to tailplane/elevators)? My simple brain says – further forward = less moment = more surface area required = more weight. Anyone know why?

I too saw the FAAM Corsair for the first time in it’s “old coat of paint” a few weeks ago and echo the previous complimentary remarks.

Roger Smith.

Hi everyone I just thought since you were on the Corsair subject you might like this video clip. It is from the Chino show that was a couple of weeks back. http://warbirdaeropress.com/JasonVideo/ChinoCorsairs.wmv

So another question is; is take-off configuration different when taking off from a carrier (flaps down, or partly down) and an airfield (I’m guessing fully up – or pilots choice)?

…Would it have been normal to leave the flaps down after the pilot had completed shut down and vacated? Or does it not matter?

It dosen’t matter! I would much rather see it with the flaps down, the Corsair especially lends itself to this configuration, it’s quite clever how the flaps ‘continue’ across the vee of the wing bend.

brewster corsair

I think the Corsair that was dug up in Somerset last year (photos on Graham adlams exellent website spitfirespares.com )

was a Brewster Built Corsair 😀

Interesting point about the Brewster Corsairs supplied to the RN is that quite a few of them were supplied in USN 3 color camouflage – which makes the presence of green/grey on the Brewster components even more interesting!!

one of her cockpit, tok a few weeks ago

Just one question about the ‘plane itself.

Would it have been normal to leave the flaps down after the pilot had completed shut down and vacated? Or does it not matter?

Don’t think it matters. Im sure there is a step in the RH flap to help get into the thing.

Nice clear pics Robbo! Is it just me or can you make out exhaust staining????

I used to wonder why the Corsair sat at such a level attitude on the deck, when you see how much nose there is in front of the pilot you realise it’s an absolute necessity so that the poor guy has at least a vague idea where the aircraft is going.

It really is an impressive piece of work. The book about it is a good read too, with lots of detail photos. I read on the net somewhere that the Brewster plant was so badly organised there was a machine at the end of the production line to turn the Corsairs over and shake the loose bits out. Sounds too bad to be true. They certainly lost the contract. It is true that the yanks gave most of the Brewster builds to us though.

Well, that’s the net for you.
It is totally normal to have a “Turnover fixture” on a production line of small aircraft. A simple idea that works perfectly, if there is a loose nut or bolt in there, known as FOD, it makes a hell of a rattle. You can even hear a clipping off the end of a cable/wire tinkle about. A far quicker way than to search every single nook & cranny…..which is what has to be done on big stuff like an airliner. The one at Dunsfold for the Harrier 1 has been moved (I assume) to Warton. The Turnovers are still done every time there is a deep strip maintenance, or an engine-out.
The fixtures I have seen on small A/c production lines are all aimed at revolving a fuselage only, and if there was a nose engine….it isn’t fitted when spun. The RPM is probably only 10.
I have also heard of a Turnover fixture with a Laser system picking up small FOD inside a fuselage, sensing it as it falls.
Furthermore, branching out a little but still on FOD hunting, with todays CAD/CAM, one can feed the 3D design image to a camera and that camera scans the area…if it doesn’t look the same, it lets you know. This is more used in the car manufacturing lark, but is presently used in a few A/c areas. I’m sure that will expand.

Just one question about the ‘plane itself.

Would it have been normal to leave the flaps down after the pilot had completed shut down and vacated? Or does it not matter?

Very nice photos! Thanks for sharing .

It really is an impressive piece of work. The book about it is a good read too, with lots of detail photos. I read on the net somewhere that the Brewster plant was so badly organised there was a machine at the end of the production line to turn the Corsairs over and shake the loose bits out. Sounds too bad to be true. They certainly lost the contract. It is true that the yanks gave most of the Brewster builds to us though.

I’ve read that somewhere as well – 730 odd they made, the ones in US service were all red lined at far below expectations but more than half made their way to the FAA – can’t dig out much about problems with them in the books I have, not tried the WWW yet – Robbo’s pictures above tell the story, you can touch the oil and paint !

The Brewster scandal was matched in some ways by Curtiss and their efforts to build P-47’s I understand?