With all due respect, I really don't see how your explanation of the prop angle makes any sense. Any prop angle other than perpendicular to the relative wind on a single engine aircraft will create a yawing moment at high power settings due to P factor. And I have never seen a prop engine tilted purposely to compensate for it being higher or lower than the CG of the aircraft.
Then to be blunt, you've never seen a high powered piston-engined aircraft. The F4U has it, the P-51, the P-38, the SPITFIRE, The DC-3 even has a slight negative thrust line. That is why it is ALSO
canted to one side and not just down. It offsets both the thrust line being higher than the centerline of the aircraft and the torque presented. P-Factor is offset by the fixed rudder tab and/or vertical stabilizer offset, which the P-51 has several degrees of, as does the Spitfire. The fact is that's what was done and why. I'm sorry if you don't understand it.
When I meant the Corsair, I meant the fighter version of the A7 as I have seen it landing with the wing tilted out of the root. Sorry I wasn't specific enough, but it shoulda been obvious. Glad you guys found info on the twist of the wing of the 51.
I guess I need to be clearer - there is NO FIGHTER VERSION OF THE A-7
. The F8U Crusader came BEFORE
the A-7 and is a totally different aircraft. There are similarities because Vought used the same basic fuselage, but everything else is different including the landing gear (taller and stronger), wing (different design without tilting mechanism, bigger flaps, stronger to carry hard points), fuselage (tail sloped differently to provide additional clearance, wider, and shorter by 8 feet overall), and engine (non-afterburning Allison TF-41 versus the afterburning Pratt J57 of the F8U). The difference may be obvious to you, but there are a lot of aviation history luddites (meant in the nicest way) on this forum and they don't know that there were 2 Corsairs or that there was even an F8U.
BTW, I just got a note from a reliable source and it was confirmed that the Angle of Incidence of the wing on the P-51 is variable along its span and has an average of ~1*, not 2.5 as previously reported. This confirms that there is washout of some level in the wing as the AoI wouldn't be variable if there wasn't some twist to the chord relative to the Centerline of the aircraft.
I think A2A is finally going to Clobber me once and for all, but I'm on the verge of saying that they modelled their tip washout upside down in the 3D model. I kid you not. Look at the angle of Incidence at the tip versus the angle of Incidence at the root in the Buzz's screenshot. I'm -not- saying that, yet, but that is where I'm leaning towards with this discussion...Somebody explain to me why the tip appears to have a higher angle of incidence than the root when it should be lower, by definition of "washout". Am I just seeing things or misunderstanding the definitions?
While washout typically means the wingtip has a lower angle of incidence than the root, it is not universal. However, I don't see this as the case with the screenshots shown elsewhere without the harsh shadowing that makes it difficult to determine the chord line of the tip in the screenshots here. I see a slight washout from root to tip. The problem is the wing/body fairing is huge and not proportional to the wing shape making it deceptive to the actual wing chord. However, the charts referenced before seem to indicate the tip will stall before the root, so it's also possible that indeed the washout is inverse to normal. Remember, the overriding desire of the North American team was creating the most maneuverable airplane possible, but also one with the longest range. This is why the laminar flow wing was so important and why so much was done to ensure that it was the overriding point of focus for maintenance in the field behind the engine. There were things done to the wing that were unique to the P-51 because it was also the only one using a laminar flow wing at the time.