General Discussion

teamster633

(2,032 posts)

31. The problem with the Corsair was forward visibility.

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 08:46 AM

Jan 2012

This couldn't really be considered a design flaw since the whole point of the aircraft was utilizing the huge R-2800 as a power plant. It's signature bent wings were themselves a compromise required to prevent the massive propeller that engine drove from striking the ground. The solution (which was discovered by the Brits) was to simply alter the landing approach.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

45 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

F-35C jet fighter unable to land on carriers [View all] Pilotguy Jan 2012 OP

Unbelievable. They've been manufacturing planes to land on carriers for how many years? gateley Jan 2012 #1

No, it didn't make it anywhere close to completion. TheWraith Jan 2012 #4

You mean the carrier version can't, actually, land on carriers? Whoops. Warren DeMontague Jan 2012 #2

UPI Pilotguy Jan 2012 #6

Thanks. Warren DeMontague Jan 2012 #12

Of course, it can't... MrScorpio Jan 2012 #3

F-35B is in trouble also. DoD failed with the multi purpose aircraft F-111, lucked out by chance jody Jan 2012 #5

And we still can't win. RC Jan 2012 #11

Been in combat myself. That's why I identify with the Marines who were fed up and said "Piss on it"! jody Jan 2012 #16

That sounds like one of those "a small child could spot this" design flaws. (nt) Posteritatis Jan 2012 #7

God damn it.....that is quite a design flaw....SNAFU. Curmudgeoness Jan 2012 #8

(QLR ) Quick look review , Who orpupilofnature57 Jan 2012 #9

"US Marine Corps version of the F-35 Lightning II" is the F-35B not F-35C. nt jody Jan 2012 #10

The F-35C is the carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter Pilotguy Jan 2012 #15

F-22 Raptor Pilotguy Jan 2012 #13

No sweat re oxygen, just restrict F-35s to less than 12k feet altitude. In the meantime DoD has jody Jan 2012 #18

k&r for exposure. This is important. n/t Laelth Jan 2012 #14

$56 billion pokerfan Jan 2012 #17

... redqueen Jan 2012 #38

Yet another engineering marvel! man4allcats Jan 2012 #19

35 or so Democrats voted for this monstrosity, and continue to support it. joshcryer Jan 2012 #20

While you're ousting and electing twice as many orpupilofnature57 Jan 2012 #25

Isn't this fixable? Nt DevonRex Jan 2012 #21

For only several billion dollars it can be fixed. Angleae Jan 2012 #23

Lockheed says the fix is underway & should be retested in 2nd quarter of this year pinboy3niner Jan 2012 #24

This is really a non-issue. DevonRex Jan 2012 #39

So we need to build more and bigger carriers? gratuitous Jan 2012 #22

No, that wouldn't help. stevenleser Jan 2012 #41

How can you say that until we try it? gratuitous Jan 2012 #42

How many billions? Bucky Jan 2012 #26

Hardly Kellerfeller Jan 2012 #45

The F4U Corsair wasn't considered Carrier worthy at first either. Ganja Ninja Jan 2012 #27

Which is why they do testing tammywammy Jan 2012 #28

The problem with the Corsair was forward visibility. teamster633 Jan 2012 #31

It had other problems too. Ganja Ninja Jan 2012 #34

If they can land a C-130 on deck witout arrester gear oneshooter Jan 2012 #32

My father flew corsairs. God he loved that plane. Warts DevonRex Jan 2012 #36

I can't imagine what it would be like to be an early 20 something ... Ganja Ninja Jan 2012 #40

He was 20 by a couple of months DevonRex Jan 2012 #44

This fighter will never see the light of day chrisa Jan 2012 #29

This is what comes from cookbook engineering hootinholler Jan 2012 #30

Whoops. n/t leeroysphitz Jan 2012 #33

make the tailhook longer.... Evasporque Jan 2012 #35

They already are. See pinboy's reply to me above. Nt DevonRex Jan 2012 #37

Most likely solution: Give more money to the MIC to develop a shinier model with more chrome. Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2012 #43