An interesting read on wing location last night. The F4U Corsair, though seeming to be mostly a low wing airplane, got aerodynamic credit for being a mid wing plane. Though the wings did not intersect the fuselage at the mid point, they did intersect square to the fuselage, so no aerodynamic wing to fuselage fairings were needed. It was the most aerodynamic arrangement possible for an airplane whose wings were mostly "low" relative to the fuselage. The inverted gull wing allowed for a large prop, shorter, lighter landing gear, and the aforementioned aerodynamic efficiency. The benefit of the shorter landing gear was not only lighter, and less spindly, but when retracted, would fit into the wing chord. This wing arrangement had more going for it than I had previously considered.

Fascinating. I knew the large prop and shorter gear leg reasons for the inverted gull wing of the Corsair but I had never heard of the wing attachment benefits.

A few years ago, but it seems like only yesterday, I had the opportunity to fly in some warbirds in NZ. The earlier comment about a Harvard reminds me of something I was told by one experienced warbird pilot. He said that anyone who could fly a Harvard well, would be easily able to fly most other warbirds. You just had to remember that you had more than 1000 extra horsepower!

My Harvard pilot told me the same thing. He said good on the Harvard, you could check yourself out in the P-51. He'd done the P-51 course. That said, I was flying the Harvard from the back seat, and the view was pretty minimal for landing. I have great appreciation for a pilot who can land a Harvard well from the back seat! Conversely, I flew the Stearman from the front, and landing it was easy.