Author Topic: Myth or fact > F8F (Read 14360 times)

Karnak · « **Reply #15 on:** December 04, 2005, 03:47:24 PM »

Look at the position of the Ki-84's landing gear. I doubt they could be any further forward and would be ver surprised if the main spar is in front of them. I don't know about the construction of the wing other than that though.

Also keep in mind the excelent systems integration of the BMW powered Fw190s. I would not hesitate to say that the Fw190s with BMW engines had the best cockpits of any significant WWII fighter, and by a fairly good margin. I would say that the British, Russians, Italians and Japanese seem almost to not have given any thought at all to lightening the pilot's work load and some American companies failed pretty badly too.

F4UDOA · « **Reply #16 on:** December 04, 2005, 04:09:16 PM »

Quote

Performance was very good, out-climbing the XF4U-4 and giving up only about 10 mph in maximum speed.

Err,

Is this a troll?

HoHun · « **Reply #17 on:** December 04, 2005, 04:58:20 PM »

Hi Krusty,

>The P51 and the P47 both had it too, omigaw, we were stealing LW plans from before we knew there was a Fw190!!!

Learn to be more specific. The P-47 has its landing gear aft of the front spar and accordingly features a semi-monocoque wing root structure.

>Claiming that the F8F is a copy of the Fw190 is silly.

If you intend to continue the discussion at that level of sophistication, just save me some time and tell me now so that I can put you on my ignore list right away.

Thanks in advance,

Henning (HoHun)

Angus · « **Reply #18 on:** December 04, 2005, 05:27:09 PM »

Krusty: you'll earn a happy place beside my name on HoHun's priviliged contributer's list in a whiff if you carry on like this.
Come to think of it, the item that got me there was a debate where I turned out to have a better point than him, hehe. I wish he'd put my name up in big letters for reminders.

Widewing · « **Reply #19 on:** December 04, 2005, 06:26:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by F4UDOA
Err,

Is this a troll?

Hardly.

Pat Gallo performed the initial flight tests and reported 425 mph and a climb to 15,000 feet in 3.7 minutes. He did not use the water injection system on the early test flights.

Corwin Meyer, who flew one of the the XF6F-6s several times reported that with water injection, climb from sea level to 15,000 feet was obtained 3.4 minutes. Maximum speed (with water injection), was 433 mph. In Meyer's own words, "they had the same engine and propeller, and that made them about equal in performance." Meyer flew the F4U-4 several times and was aware of what it was capable of.

My regards,

WIdewing

Crumpp · « **Reply #20 on:** December 04, 2005, 06:32:37 PM »

Quote

Claiming that the F8F is a copy of the Fw190 is silly.

Give the NASM Garber Facility a call. Talk to them about the design features of the F8F and ask them their experience in the similarities to the FW-190.

http://www.nasm.si.edu/museum/garber/

While not an exact carbon copy, the design is certainly based on Grumman's experience with the Focke Wulf and is summed up nicely by Widewing.

Neither the P51 or the P47 had the wingspar construction Hohun is refering too. They have a main wingspar which is actually multiple pieces bolted together.

The FW-190's is one solid piece running throughout most of the wing. It is not bolted together or fitted from the fuselage. The wings run under the fuselage and the main spar is one continous piece.

The upside to this construction is tremendous strength. The downside is if the mainspar takes damage, it is much harder to repair. Usually the wing was just replaced and the repair performed at depot or higher. Although I am certain a Geschwader level maintenance shop could do it given the time. I mean we did it in our shop.

All the best,

Crumpp

Squire · « **Reply #21 on:** December 04, 2005, 07:20:36 PM »

"Hellcat" dy David Handerton, confirms what I thought I remembered correctly in my small head, it was built around a requirement for a minimum takeoff, maximum climb interceptor, and was to be based aboard the CVEs. Range was a secondary consideration. It doesnt have much else on it, since its a book on the F6F mainly.

Out of curiosity, for those that have more info on it, did the 1945 version have any air-ground ordnance? I see no rocket rails or even wing pylons for it in the photos I can find. Only a center rack for a drop tank.

As for Korea, I guess because Grumman went to jets, it was F9F Panther deployed, and the Grumman prop fighters were retired from the USN, thus no Hellcats or F8Fs in Korea.

agent 009 · « **Reply #22 on:** December 04, 2005, 07:33:59 PM »

Their engineers flew one in England & "that" is what inspired the cat. they decided to do a one up on it. Lighter better version. It ended up being heavier & the tail does look like a taller Corsair tail & the downslope of the nose looke like Hellcat, so yes inspired by 190, not direct copy, but that was not the stated goal, the stated goal was a one up-improvement on it.

Squire · « **Reply #23 on:** December 04, 2005, 07:50:48 PM »

The only thing I will say about the debate about what inspired it is that all combat a/c designers who are worth anything will take a hard look at allied, enemy and competitors a/c, and innovations, and incorporate them into a new design. Of course, each country has differing requirements, economies, and time frames, so its always hard to compare one to another that way. However, many a/c over history have been inspired by anothers designs. Thats been going on since the Wright Flyer, and continues to this day.

"The Ju-87 was inspired by a visit to the US by Ernst Udet, then a ranking officer in the new Luftwaffe. There he saw demonstrations of a Curtiss Hawk biplane being used as a dive bomber and the German penchant for the type was born."

Goes both ways.

Where did Curtiss get the idea? who knows, maybe a seagull took a dump on him one day...

Tony Williams · « **Reply #24 on:** December 04, 2005, 08:02:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Squire
Where did Curtiss get the idea? who knows, maybe a seagull took a dump on him one day...

He probably took at look at some British bombing techniques used late in WW1 - they seem to have been the first to use dive-bombing. Pity they almost forgot about it thereafter - can't have the RAF subordinated to the Army's needs, can we?

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

Karnak · « **Reply #25 on:** December 04, 2005, 08:06:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tony Williams
He probably took at look at some British bombing techniques used late in WW1 - they seem to have been the first to use dive-bombing. Pity they almost forgot about it thereafter - can't have the RAF subordinated to the Army's needs, can we?

That sounds very much like the schism between the US Army and US Air Force over the A-10. The Air Force wants fast, high, sexy high tech aircraft and the Army wants to be supported. I have a friend who was a tank commander in the US Army in the late '80s/early '90s and he has scathing things to say about the Air Force persistantly trying to get rid of the A-10, but not allowing the Army to have them because fixed wing aircraft are the domain of the Air Force.

Nothing ever changes.

agent 009 · « **Reply #26 on:** December 04, 2005, 08:29:02 PM »

Grumman, however, favored a lighter and more manoeuvrable design more like the German Focke Wulf Fw 190, of which a captured example was flown by Grumman test pilot Bob Hall in England. The resulting Grumman design, the XF8F-1, weighed only 7,017 pounds empty and was sometimes described as the smallest airframe built around the most powerful, fully-developed engine, a real "hot rod."

Squire · « **Reply #27 on:** December 04, 2005, 08:36:05 PM »

I watched a show last night that commented on why the F-117 is given the "F" designation in the USAF. Apparently its so pilots will like flying it. I found that disturbing. Its a bomber, pure and simple, there is no shame in that is there?

In any case I heard that the A-10 was actually quite popular to fly in the USAF, despite being the "A" 10. I also think it has been demonstrated to be amongst the USAFs best combat types, but alas, it can't go Mach 3 and doesnt cost 500 million per copy, so it must be "obsolete".

...untill there is another war, perhaps with China or N.Korea, and they need an a/c that can be sent into harms way to take out tanks, and wont break the bank if they lose one.

Crumpp · « **Reply #28 on:** December 04, 2005, 08:49:26 PM »

Quote

"The Ju-87 was inspired by a visit to the US by Ernst Udet, then a ranking officer in the new Luftwaffe. There he saw demonstrations of a Curtiss Hawk biplane being used as a dive bomber and the German penchant for the type was born."

Udet actually bought a few Curtiss Hawks AFAIK.

All the best,

Crumpp

MiloMorai · « **Reply #29 on:** December 04, 2005, 09:07:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
Udet actually bought a few Curtiss Hawks AFAIK.

All the best,

Crumpp

Germany got 2 Goshawks which were the USN model of the Hawk. They were Hawk IIs(F11C-2). The first one was coded D-3165 but was changed to D-IRIS. The other was D-IRIK.