Myth or fact > F8F

[Crumpp]

And if the spar construction was different than that of the Fw-190, that sort of detracts from the argument that they were similar, and therefore inspired by the Fw-190.

Examine the landing gear of the Focke Wulf and the Bearcat.

http://www.shanaberger.com/images/F8F_3.htm

http://www.white1foundation.org/photos/Black3/21.jpg

The Bearcat gear hinges ahead of the main spar. So did the Hellcat gear,

Which has nothing to do with the FW-190/Bearcat similarities.  The F6F landing gear were attached by a yoke assembly to a section of the main wingspar that ran thru the center.  That main wingspar was in multiple pieces bolted together.

Nothing at all like the Bearcat or the FW-190.

The Bearcat was not a "copy" of the Fw-190.

I don't see any such claims in this thread so do not sensationalize.  Big difference between copy and influence.

Upon returning to the Grumman facility, the influence of flying the Focke Wulf deliberately crept into the design process.

All the best,

Crumpp

[ShortyDoowap]

Originally posted by Crumpp
I don't see any such claims in this thread so do not sensationalize.  Big difference between copy and influence.

All the best,

Crumpp [/B]

Again, Crumpp

HoHun wrote:

The F8F was a copy of the Fw 190 adapted to a US-built engine, US armament and the requirement for carrier capability.

I'm glad we agree on that.

[Crumpp]

BTW, planes don't fly at empty weight. At a loaded 9,200-9,300 lb weight, the F8F-1 had a top speed of 434 mph at 19,800 feet. It also had a military power (NOT combat power) initial climb rate of 5,000 feet per minute. How does that compare to the Fw-190A-9?

I don't know, how does it compare?  421mph is the fastest I can find for the F8F-1 and a climb rate of 4500fpm.

Let's look at the XF8F which did have a 5000fpm climb rate:

http://img22.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=9d0_XF8Fperformance2.jpg

The chart on the FW-190A9 is fully loaded.

http://img111.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=d5f_Doraspeed3.jpg


This small exerpt is flown at combat weight at Start u Notleistung not Erhöhte Notleistung.

http://img111.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=72c_FW190A9.jpg

The Bearcat has the FW-190A9 on sustained climb but not by much.  The Climb on the FW-190A9 runs from 3900fpm to 4500fpm depending on the weight/prop.

All in all very comparable aircraft when it comes to performance especially when you consider aircraft performance is percentage range not an absolute.  

As the guys who restored both the Focke Wulf and Bearcat at the NASM told me, they are almost the same plane.  In fact, they refer to the FW-190 as the "Teutonic Bearcat".

Pretty good for the Focke Wulf when you consider it has 300 cu inches less displacement.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

The F8F was a copy of the Fw 190

Is not a true statement.

However, when you consider the rest of Hohun's statement:

adapted to a US-built engine, US armament and the requirement for carrier capability.

It becomes a true statement.  Just as Widewing wrote:

Upon returning to the Grumman facility, the influence of flying the Focke Wulf deliberately crept into the design process.

Both statements are accurate descriptions of the Bearcat's FW-190 influence.

All the best,

Crumpp

[ShortyDoowap]

Originally posted by Crumpp
I don't know, how does it compare?  421mph is the fastest I can find for the F8F-1 and a climb rate of 4500fpm.

Not sure what the 421 mph speed is, but the climb rate is a Normal Power climb rate.
434 mph is a clean wet WEP speed for the production F8F-1 on 100/130 PN fuel.

Let's look at the XF8F which did have a 5000fpm climb rate:

5,850 fpm initial climb rate:



The climb charts that accompany this Vought document may still be available on the web.  If you don’t have it, I’ll be happy to post it.

The Bearcat has the FW-190A9 on sustained climb but not by much.  The Climb on the FW-190A9 runs from 3900fpm to 4500fpm depending on the weight/prop.

The Pilot’s Handbook for the F8F-1 lists the following Time-To-Climb figures:

1 minute to 5,000 feet
2.13 minutes to 10,000 feet
3.36 minutes to 15,000 feet
4.80 minutes to 20,000 feet
6.60 minutes to 25,000 feet

These are Military Power Climb rates. The chart in the manual does not show any performance on WEP and states War Emergency Power ratings had not yet been established at the time. These are ratings on 100/130 grade fuel.

Combat Power climb rates would have been in excess of these figures, and probably close to that of the XF8F-1.

All in all very comparable aircraft when it comes to performance especially when you consider aircraft performance is percentage range not an absolute.  

Not quite as comparable when correct figures are used.  

As the guys who restored both the Focke Wulf and Bearcat at the NASM told me, they are almost the same plane.  In fact, they refer to the FW-190 as the "Teutonic Bearcat".

Again, not supported by Grumman histories or documents.   I think this is a myth started by someone who noticed some superficial similarities between planes and decided one must be based on the other.   I’d thoroughly love some real evidence that the Bearcat is based on the Fw-190.  Unfortunately, it seems to be lacking in credible histories, although it abounds on the web.  

Pretty good for the Focke Wulf when you consider it has 300 cu inches less displacement.

Never said it was a bad performer.

[ShortyDoowap]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Is not a true statement.

However, when you consider the rest of Hohun's statement:

It becomes a true statement.  Just as Widewing wrote:

Both statements are accurate descriptions of the Bearcat's FW-190 influence.

All the best,

Crumpp

Neither say anything substantial.   Both say the Fw-190 influenced the Bearcat, but neither say how.    

There is not a single aspect of the Bearcat's design that was miraculously revealed to them by an inspection of an Fw-190.   The Bearcat, despite superlative performance, was an extraordinarily conventional design.

If you can come up with something meaningful, I'd like to hear it.  So far that hasn't happened.   The "I've talked to the people at Garber..." isn't sufficient.  I could say the same thing.  And I have obtained substantial records and documents on the both the F7F and F8F from the GHC and none it supports an Fw-190 relationship.    

The burden of proof is on the one that makes the claim.   Internet sources and other unsubstantiated claims that perpetuate internet rumor just don't cut it.  

So far, the only influence on the design of the Bearcat was need.  Rene Francillon sums it up nicely:



If the Fw-190 had been any sort of a major influence, you'd think the likes of Francillon would have mentioned it.

[Angus]

Looks like a solid Grumman to me

[Crumpp]

If you can come up with something meaningful, I'd like to hear it.

Try the mainwing spar construction.  Unique to the both aircraft as it has been pointed out.

Not quite as comparable when correct figures are used.

See Widewings comments on Grumman set ups.

The Navy always tested at max gross weight, Grumman usually tested with one hour of fuel, plus reserve. Grumman generally did not add ballast for uninstalled ammunition (although Republic did). Grumman primped and preened the aircraft before testing, whereas the Navy flew them as is/was.

Crumpp says:
The Bearcat has the FW-190A9 on sustained climb but not by much.

Which is a true statement.

Funny you posted exactly the same chart I did on the XF8F, BTW.

The FW-190A9 is generally faster than the Bearcat while the Bearcat generally outclimbs the FW-190A9.

How much combat did the F8F-1 see in World War II?  Did it shoot down any aircraft?

The FW-190A9 went into combat in the Summer of 1944 and fought until the end.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Neil Stirling1]

F8F-1 from Airplane Characteristics & Performance Navaer-1335D 1st June 1945. 1 fuselage and 2 wing bomb racks, 9,386lbs. Note this on 100/130  grade, later 115/145 grade used and 70"hg. Speed with this rating comes from Gruman F8F Bearcat by Christopher Chant.

Fw 190 A-9 from Crumps chart.






Neil.

[Angus]

Was the Hp very different?
Anyway for a navalized aircraft the performance is spectacular.
And from Crumpp:
"Try the mainwing spar construction. Unique to the both aircraft as it has been pointed out"

And the A6m? Was asking about it, but didn't see a reply. It's from Deighton's "blood, tears and folly" but I just don't have the book with me at the moment, so it's a memory issue. I do recall with certainty that he mention the wing as a "whole" running through the underside of the fuselage to create a lot of strenght.

[F4UDOA]

Shorty,

Trust me when I say that I am extremely careful of the loading and drag conditions listed in all performance charts.

When measuring speed it is important to check the drag condition as weight does not matter. When measuring climb the Pylons, rocket stubs and sway bars do not matter because the parasaite drag does not affect the A/C very much at climbing speed but the weight will affect it draticaly.

In the two climb test I mentioned I have the weight and loading data for each A/C so I feel comfortable with both of the test.

The document you have from Vought came from my site.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/

Here is the link for the A6M5 test

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/TAICzero.pdf

[Mime]

who cares what influenced what... fact is F8F is a big fat ugly pig and 190 is a sexy sleak looking Totmaschine... ;-)

[Neil Stirling1]

Navaer 1335 D 1 June 1945.
F8F-1 R-2800-34W 100/130 grade 2,380 hp at sl 2400hp at 1000ft 1850hp at 15500ft.
Grumman Bearcat by Chant.
F8F-1 R-2800-34W 2,750hp at sl 2,450 hp at 9,600ft. My guess is that this is possibly the later rating using 115/145 grade. The F8F-1 power chart from 1949 shows 70"hg with 115/145.

Neil.

[Crumpp]

Fw 190 A-9 from Crumps chart.

You better do some recalculations.  You have the heaviest an FW-190A9 can be up against a combat weight Bearcat.

At 1.65ata a combat weight FW-190A8 was doing 588kph.  Just as fast as a fully loaded FW-190A9 does on 1.78ata.

wing as a "whole"

Is not the same as a solid one piece wingspar, Angus.  Many low wing monoplanes have the entire wing running under the fuselage.

All the best,

Crumpp

[ShortyDoowap]

Thank you, Neil.  That little red square comports nicely with my earlier statement:

434 mph is a clean wet WEP speed for the production F8F-1 on 100/130 PN fuel.

So, the widely published "421 mph" speed IS a wet WEP speed in COMBAT configuration, ie racks.  The 434 mph speed is just as I stated, wet WEP in CLEAN configuration.