Myth or fact > F8F

[MiloMorai]

What was removed from the listed empty weight of the A-8 to get the weight down to the 3050kg you say it was. Even removing the weight of accessories, it still leaves 94kg un-accounted for.

What is included in service weight.

[Crumpp]

What is included in service weight.

You got the load sheet, right and all the answers?   Your the expert.  Go dig it out or visit your local archives.

Here is one hint for some of it:

"Ah Tower, am I cleared to land?"

All the best,

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Why am I not surprised by your reply Crumpp.  

Maybe others would like to know how you arrived at the weights you state since they are in conflict with what a Fw data sheet says.

[Crumpp]

Why am I not surprised by your reply Crumpp.

You shouldn't be.  What is that saying, you reap what you sow.

The information does not conflict at all with what is included in Technical Description 284 Milo.  That report does not include the leergewicht (empty weight) only the rüstgewicht (service weight).

The information comes from these sheets.
 


All the best,

Crumpp

[humble]

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

Please provide me with a reference to back up this statement. I am unaware of anyone anywhere who has ever commented on the 190 (any flavor) being an equal....let alone superior plane to the F8F. From my perspective your the one working on myth. The 190 was a fine airplane....certainly the premier combat fighter in the world when it hit frontline service. As always things adjust. The spitIX proved a suitable counter to the point it went from a stopgap to a mainstay. As a general rule the performance arguements of 190-D9/109K vs P-51D are valid. The pony is a far superior plane not because its "better" but because its a far far superior weapon from a mission capability standpoint.

Now the F8F was/is viewed as clearly superior to the P51 by a tremendous number of pilots who flew both....including the P-51 in combat. Now many test pilots actually considered the F7F as superior to the F8F (but thats a different story).

So my "position" is based on a comparision of the F8F vs P-51 in which the F8F is consistantly viewed as a superior plane.

[humble]

Originally posted by JAWS2003
I woldn't trust the wings on the bearcat to fight against a high performance fighter with a high structural strengh.

The F8F was a carrier plane, an awful lot tougher design standard?

[humble]

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.

I ment in the BoB sense....the English expected to be defending England in France:)....obviously WW1 dirigible attacks fortold some level of bombing....but the germans didnt have any real long range bombing capability. So unless you the ability to forcast the blitzkrieg thru France you expected the fight to be focused in France....

[Crumpp]

So my "position" is based on a comparision of the F8F vs P-51 in which the F8F is consistantly viewed as a superior plane.

http://www.truthpizza.org/logic/badlogic.htm

[Crumpp]

The F8F was a carrier plane, an awful lot tougher design standard?

For landing gear sure.

[George]

Dear Crumpp

would you please to post whole Laderplan, please

[Crumpp]

would you please to post whole Laderplan, please

I can't do it George, not anymore.  It takes time money and effort to collect these things.  I have them for ALL the Focke Wulf 190's and Ta-152 A/C plus literally rooms of documentation on the design.  All I want is some token tax-deductible non-profit support for the Foundation:

http://www.white1foundation.org/

Of which I am on the Board of Directors.  At one time I would have been glad to do it and have presented them with numerous reports already which they have done nothing in the past 2 years about.  Why waste my time?

They don't put any priority on realistically modeling the aircraft for their game, why should I?

I enjoy the discussion board more than the game, although it is hardly the best source of history or science because of the game factor.

Back to the F8F vs. FW-190.

Lets examine the design philosophy of the Bearcat:

1.  Smallest, lightest fighter, with the most powerful engine available.   Nobody else came up with that one!  That is pretty much the design premise behind most European fighters in WWII.  

Smaller?  Larger wingspan by 1 foot than the FW-190 but around a 1 foot shorter fuselage.  Pretty much the same.  Much larger cowling and intake due to the PW R2800-34W motor simply being larger than the BMW801.

Did the PW R2800-34 represent new engine technology?

It was used in many older designs.

 

The engines were water injected versions of the Pratt & Whitney "Double Wasp" first tested on the XC-46B.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/cargo/c4/c46g.htm

Power production is pretty comparable with BMW801S series motors so I just don't see hoopla about the F8F.  The PW R2800 does have 300 cu inches more displacement and produces more power equal to that volume using water injection.  I will say it was smart decision on Grumman’s part not to go with a turbocharger using 1945 technology.  That more than anything swings power production efficiency by a fraction in favor of the PW R2800.  But then BMW did purposely take the hit to save development time associated with torsional dampening that plagued the R-2800’s development.  Both engines are in the 2100hp range at take off power.

http://www.enginehistory.org/NoShortDays/TV.pdf

Weight is in the same ballpark as the FW-190.  The Bearcat does have a much larger wing area.  This is why sustained turn/climb are in the Bearcat favors.

Aerodynamics:

Although Skychimps claim of lower Cd is correct for the Bearcat, that is not what is used for absolute drag comparison.  That is used to compare drag efficiency and not the absolute drag.

Although the CDp is the best value for comparing the drag efficiency of one airplane to another the term Equivalent Flat Plate area (f.) is useful for comparing the absolute parasite drag of two aircraft. Equivalent flat plate area is defined as:

http://142.26.194.131/aerodynamics1/Drag/Page4.html

The Bearcat does have a lower Cd, which means it is more efficient at reducing drag production.  However, it simply has much more area and a simple flat plat comparison will immediately show drag to be in the FW-190's favor.   Most of that R2800 power gets eaten up overcoming the drag.  This is why the tested curves are so close.  

And of course this drag effects all performance parameters requiring the Bearcat to have more power to perform the same work as a lower drag aircraft.

Wing design:

The Bearcat has "laminar flow" wings.  We know today that "laminar flow" using propeller engine speeds was not very feasible except in the lab.

Sounds good though to say we have "laminar flow wing" in 1945 and as the both allied and axis wind tunnel tests it did contribute to the drag production efficiency seen in the Cd of the Bearcat.

Construction has been covered already.

Armament:

Well 4 x .50cals is just not anywhere in the same league as 4 x 20mm's and 2 x 13mm MG's.  FW-190 has very comparable performance with a lot more punch.

Design growth potential:

Here the Bearcat soars ahead, IMHO.  The FW-190 series was restricted by it's CG limits.  Although the Dora/Ta-152 series had once again expanded the growth potential of the design the Bearcat was in its infancy as a design.  Barring any major design flaws by the Grumman team should be the hands down winner.

All the best,

Crumpp

[JAWS2003]

Originally posted by humble
The F8F was a carrier plane, an awful lot tougher design standard?

The wings on the Bearcat were too weak. Pilots lost their life pulling out of dive bombing runs. The proble was never fixed properlly.

[straffo]

Originally posted by JAWS2003
The wings on the Bearcat were too weak. Pilots lost their life pulling out of dive bombing runs. The proble was never fixed properlly.

If I recall correctly they were supose to break in some circumstancies.

[JAWS2003]

yes but usually only one would break. They tried to fix it with explosive charges late after the war. After some accidents they dropped the idea and ordered pilots to fly at much lower G forces.

[Crumpp]

yes but usually only one would break. They tried to fix it with explosive charges late after the war. After some accidents they dropped the idea and ordered pilots to fly at much lower G forces.

I think this is discussed at the JFC.

Any idea what the G limits were on the Bearcat?  The FW-190 was limited to 8G's, then 6 G's or 5.5 when loaded with bombs.  Depending on the variant.

Which is not bad considering the P51B was limited to 6 G's and the P51D was restricted to 4 G's.

All the best,

Crumpp