Author Topic: Myth or fact > F8F (Read 16449 times)

humble · « **Reply #225 on:** December 19, 2005, 01:26:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
Try the FW-190A9. It is closest to the Bearcat.

The Dora has much better performance as the numbers tell.

Other than that you put out a significant amount of opinion with little fact.

All the best,

Crumpp

The F8 outclimbs out accelerates and out turns the Dora....the dora has a nominal speed advantage up high....but not enough to really make a differance. Truthfully all I see here is opinion with little or no "fact". All I'm voicing is historical consensus with very little actual opinion of my own.

humble · « **Reply #226 on:** December 19, 2005, 01:35:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
From Humble:
"As for your points, the RAF never expected to be defending England proper to any significant degree....they expected to be fighting on the continent"

WHAT?

Dowding's Fighter Command was ABSOLUTELY first and foremost about defending the home islands.

England had no real perception that that a war would be fought on over England before hostilities commenced. Wars had been fought "over there" for centuries with no one since William actually invading England. The British historically fought their war on the other guys turf and had no different expectations....as did the germans. Both sides were geared toward a land war in Europe and both sides really viewed the air war from a WW1 perspective...the big difference being the germans had a true combined arms concept of war that caught the Allies by suprise. Niether however really had aviation as an equal to their army or navy as a true force projector in its own right. A good example would be the way we viewed our naval land units (Marines) vs the British or Kriegsmarine....(or Japanese)....who saw them as ancillary troops....we won a whole war with them. So our US Army Aircorps evolved into a truely capable stand alone enitity with far great capabilities then any of its counterparts. None of this is "opinion" its simple historical fact.

Crumpp · « **Reply #227 on:** December 19, 2005, 01:39:25 PM »

Quote

I'm voicing is historical consensus with very little actual opinion of my own.

What you are saying is contrary to the opinion of those who have worked and flown both aircraft.

It is YOUR opinion based on popular myth.

All the best,

Crumpp

Pongo · « **Reply #228 on:** December 19, 2005, 10:46:12 PM »

"England had no real perception that that a war would be fought on over England before hostilities commenced. "

What do you base that on?
I think that the bombing raids of ww1 and the bombing of the Spanish Civil War had the british totally thinking that the next war could be fought over thier cities.
I have never seen someone make such a claim.

Scherf · « **Reply #229 on:** December 19, 2005, 11:10:02 PM »

^
^

Heh. Yes, naturally - the gas mask my Mum was issued with was in preparation for her being sent to the trenches, at the age of five.

And it wasn't a bomb shelter at the end of the garden - Granddad had designed a mighty howitzer to shell Berlin, and was going to install it there.

Angus · « **Reply #230 on:** December 20, 2005, 02:12:32 AM »

From Humble:
"England had no real perception that that a war would be fought on over England before hostilities commenced."

Utter nonsense Humble. They were preparing before the war started. Read up on Dowding's job please.
Does the home chain radar system not ring a bell?

ShortyDoowap · « **Reply #231 on:** December 20, 2005, 06:44:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
What you are saying is contrary to the opinion of those who have worked and flown both aircraft.

It is YOUR opinion based on popular myth.

All the best,

Crumpp

Where is the opinion of those that have flown both published, or do we have to "call Garber" and talk to someone?

Better power loading
Better wing loading
Much better drag coefficient
Carrier capable

Sounds like a walk-away for the F8F. The only advantage the Dora has a some speed. Other than that, F8F seems superior in just about every measurable category.

F4UDOA · « **Reply #232 on:** December 21, 2005, 08:56:31 AM »

Crumpp,
Are these the performance numbers you are speaking of?

These numbers do not compare with the F8F-1 or -2. Which 190 are you refering to?

F4UDOA · « **Reply #233 on:** December 21, 2005, 09:17:56 AM »

I reread the thread.

What year was the A9 produced? Are these the best 190A series numbers you have? I would like to revisit our 190A vrs F4U-1 discussion in another thread.

Crumpp · « **Reply #234 on:** December 21, 2005, 10:08:42 AM »

Quote

What year was the A9 produced?

From September 1944 until the end. Engine upgrades to the BMW801TS on FW-190A8 airframes began in the summer 1944 with all FW-190A airframes coming from the factory being able to accept any 801 Series engine in July '44.

Quote

These numbers do not compare with the F8F-1

They compare with F8F-1 very well with the Dora having a level speed advantage. The F8F-2 is a post war aircraft and does have much better performance.

I will not compare homemade charts however. It's absolutely silly and very open to manipulation. Published data of guarenteed production specs is the most accurate.

Quote

Are these the best 190A series numbers you have?

I would F4UDOA, but I already called HTC and told them I was not giving up any of the "goodies" I have dug out of 3 years of research into the Focke Wulf without a contribution to the Foundation.

I would be glad to do this on the discussion group boards with branded documents.

Are you a member of AAW? If you are I will get you in the discussion group. You still have my email address?

All the best,

Crumpp

Angus · « **Reply #235 on:** December 21, 2005, 11:58:26 AM »

The F8F was built and was already in service during the late months of WW2 right?
It just didn't see any action.
And it's a navalized aircraft, which always comes as a cost.
What do you think the 190A9 would have performed like with the gadgets added that are needed for carrier ops?

BTW, how does the F8F rack up against the post war Sea Fury????
Basically, that 1945-1947 line would be the Ultimate F4U, the Sea Fury, The Seafire 47 and the F8F. Would be interesting to compare!

JAWS2003 · « **Reply #236 on:** December 21, 2005, 04:21:54 PM »

I woldn't trust the wings on the bearcat to fight against a high performance fighter with a high structural strengh.

Neil Stirling1 · « **Reply #237 on:** December 21, 2005, 04:48:49 PM »

F8F-1 charts.

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/F8F-1+a.jpg

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/F8F-1+b.jpg

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/F8F-1+c.jpg

Neil.

Crumpp · « **Reply #238 on:** December 21, 2005, 05:47:42 PM »

Here lets take a look at what YOU are going to do....

Compare aircraft performance charts developed by warring powers during the 1940's.

How dumb is that??

Well lets see. All aircraft have position error corrections because your airspeed indicator does not measure actual ground speed and is subject to compressibility effects of the atmosphere.

Quote

Varying magnitudes of the errors described here are present within the pitot-static system of any aircraft Full details of a particular system must, therefore, be obtained from Aircraft Flight Manuals.

http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/PSSI.htm

Here are two position error corrections done by two different Allied powers on the FW-190. None of the German insturmentation is different. Same airspeed indicator, same pitot tube completely different corrections!!

And are completely different from Focke Wulfs own position correction.

Why?

Standard atmosphere was not standard! It was not standard in the United States, The United Kingdom, Germany, or anywhere in the world. The United States was actualling running three "standard" atmospheric models during the 1940's. Which one did Grumman use?

Quote

Every student of aerodynamics and flight mechanics is introduced to an atmosphere table, which allows one to determine the temperature, pressure, and density at any altitude. If you don't happen to have such a table handy, you may want to look at a sample atmosphere table in US units or SI units. The equations used are those adopted 15 October 1976 by the United States Committee on Extension to the Standard Atmosphere (COESA), representing 29 U.S. scientific and engineering organizations. The values selected in 1976 are slight modifications of those adopted in 1962. The equations and parameters used are documented in a book entitled U.S. Standard Atmosphere, 1976 published by the U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. A summary of the definition of the 1976 atmosphere is on another page.

http://www.pdas.com/atmos.htm

http://nis-www.lanl.gov/~stanleym/dissertation/node19.html

Add in the fact that aircraft performance is actually a percentage range of values:

It becomes a really silly endevour to compare aircraft that are less than 10 mph difference especially when that information comes from differing charts prepared in different countries.

All the best,

Crumpp

Angus · « **Reply #239 on:** December 21, 2005, 06:49:49 PM »

Well 3% on top speed could be some humble 12 mph...so....
And 10% on climb however some 350 fpm (which is more than he loss of clipping a Spitfire BTW)

But anyway, I rather agree. Within this margins it's in a certain "ballpark"

Although.....WW2 fighter performance didn't exactly jump on in quantum leaps.....until the 262 came around....