Author Topic: Myth or fact > F8F  (Read 14432 times)

Offline ShortyDoowap

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 111
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #75 on: December 06, 2005, 06:16:04 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by F4UDOA

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


I know you are.  I've read your substantive posts and understand that you understand.  My comments were more rhetorical, a sort of written inner monologue :).


Quote

The document you have from Vought came from my site.


I was aware of that site, but unware it was yours.  Much appreciated, it's a great resource.  


Quote

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/TAICzero.pdf [/B]


Got it, had it for some time, actually.  Think I found a link to it at this site.

Offline ShortyDoowap

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 111
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #76 on: December 06, 2005, 06:18:52 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
Funny you posted exactly the same chart I did on the XF8F, BTW.


I thought it was odd that you said the XF8F climbed at 5,000 fpm when the very chart you relied on said ti climbed at 5,850 fpm.

Substantial difference.


Quote

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 [/B]


When the arguments fail, the course of the conversation always seems to turn to, "well, how many planes did your plane shoot down?"  

:aok
« Last Edit: December 06, 2005, 06:24:33 PM by ShortyDoowap »

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #77 on: December 06, 2005, 07:42:39 PM »
Quote
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.


I guess everyone just sees what they want to see.  Someone convert 672kph to miles per hour.  It falls a little more to the right than is shown on that homemade graph.

So the homemade chart proves it....

Neil completely ignores the FW-190A9 flight test at the same conditions as the 434 mph F8F-1.  At Take off power, without the ETC 501 rack, that FW-190A9 is equally fast as the Bearcat.  Using Erhöhte Notleistung it would be faster.

That test, in a clean configuration, has the FW-190A9 doing 432 mph at FTH at Start u Notleistung not it's emergency rating of Erhöhte Notleistung.

Again not bad for a plane with 300 cu inches less displacement and very comparible to the Bearcat.

Quote
When the arguments fail, the course of the conversation always seems to turn to, "well, how many planes did your plane shoot down?"


No it simply points out you are comparing different design generations.  The Bearcat is a much newer design which does not represent a quantum leap in performance over the older Antons.  The FW-190A9 is very comparible and the Bearcat represent no competition for the Dora.

All the best,

Crumpp
« Last Edit: December 06, 2005, 08:11:38 PM by Crumpp »

Offline agent 009

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #78 on: December 06, 2005, 07:51:25 PM »
The superior climb performance of the cat is no evidence that it wasn't inspired & to a degree a copy of the 190. Again the stated goal was to make their own version of it, but better, Which it would seem they did.

& remember, when you have an already proven design, copying it & improving it is not so tough.

P.S. the NASM engineers are obviously well qualified to speak, but would not the Gruman engineers be an even better source? If they are still alive that is.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2005, 07:53:49 PM by agent 009 »

Offline ShortyDoowap

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 111
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #79 on: December 06, 2005, 08:12:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp

No it simply points out you are comparing different design generations.  The Bearcat is a much newer design which does not represent a quantum leap in performance over the older Antons.  The FW-190A9 is very comparible and the Bearcat represent no competition for the Dora.

All the best,

Crumpp [/B]


Which "Dora" are you talking about?  The only Dora advantage I see is straight speed.  That's it.   Still greatly inferior in climb rate.  And probably even less of a match in manueverability than the slower Antons.

Offline agent 009

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #80 on: December 06, 2005, 08:18:28 PM »
Dora handled better than Antons in dogfights according to those who flew it. Oscar Romm for one. It didn't bleed off speed in turns like the A series did.

Offline ShortyDoowap

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 111
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #81 on: December 06, 2005, 08:20:10 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by agent 009
The superior climb performance of the cat is no evidence that it wasn't inspired & to a degree a copy of the 190. Again the stated goal was to make their own version of it, but better, Which it would seem they did.

& remember, when you have an already proven design, copying it & improving it is not so tough.


The jury is still out on whether the Fw-190 connection is fact or myth.  Superficial similarities is no proof the Fw inspired the Bearcat.  And as far as I know, even the internet sources say the Grumman folks test flew, NOT dissected, the Fw-190.  


Quote

P.S. the NASM engineers are obviously well qualified to speak, but would not the Gruman engineers be an even better source? If they are still alive that is. [/B]


The staff at Grumman Historical Center are mainly retirees from Grumman who work to maintain a respository for Grumman historical documents.  In the number of manuals, drawings and documents I've obtained from them on the F7F and F8F, I've never run across the mention of a Fw-190 connection.

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #82 on: December 06, 2005, 08:31:06 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by ShortyDoowap
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.


A few points. I disagree with any claim that the XF8F-1 was a copy of the Fw 190A-4, which is what Hall and Gillies flew while at Farnborough. Hall has readily admitted that design decisions were made based upon their testing of the 190. However, that's a long way from copying the 190... Light years away. It is no closer to reality than claiming that the Japanese aviation industry copied the Vought (nee Northrop) V-143. Japanese designers examined the Vought very closely and borrowed ideas and even layouts. But their designs were unique to the needs of Japan in the middle-late 1930s. One Vought engineer who had an opportunity to inspect a captured Zero stated that the entire accessory section and cooler layout was taken directly from the V-143. However, being smart enough to not re-invent the wheel does not constitute copying the design of the aircraft.

This same concept applies to all aircraft designers. These people do not work in a vaccum. Each designer is influenced by the work of those who came before him, and even his contemporaries. Kurt Tank has stated several times that one of the greatest influences for the Fw 190 was the work of American designer Richard Palmer. Palmer's design of Howard Hughes' H-1 racer very much impressed Tank. No one would argue that Tank copied the H-1. He was, however, very much influenced by that highly advanced racer. And why not, it was able to set a world speed record for landplanes in 1935 on just 1,000 horsepower.



As to the XF8F-1. Shortly after deciding to design the new fighter, Roy Grumman took Hall and Gillies and went to Farnborough in September 1943, where they examined and flew a captured Fw 190. In Corky Meyer's words, "all three were enamored with the Focke Wulf 190A-4 after Bud and Bob flew it". Meyer (who was Grumman's first full-time Experimental Test Pilot and worked directly for Hall) states that the Fw 190 was an important catalyst to the design of the Bearcat. Meyer was a close friend of Hall and presumably has considerable insight into the whys and hows of the F8F's design evolution. Meyer has written about this over the past 5 years. See his biography of Hall in the October 2000 edition of Flight Journal.

My opinion is that Grumman borrowed ideas from the Focke Wulf. They took the basic design premise, improved and expanded upon that concept producing what is probably the most extraordinary prop driven fighter ever to see mass production. However, to claim that the Bearcat is a copy of the Fw 190 is going far beyond mere influence and assigns credit where it is not due.

Grumman copied Tank no more than Tank copied Palmer, who borrowed from.... etc...

If it's copies you are looking for, you need look no further than the Bell X-5.

My regards,

Widewing
« Last Edit: December 06, 2005, 08:52:28 PM by Widewing »
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline agent 009

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #83 on: December 06, 2005, 08:31:50 PM »
Why would they have any docs that mention the 190? Did "any" aviation company keep records on other airplanes that they borrowed stuff or ideas from during the war? of course not! the very idea is silly.


The "Dora" could out-climb and out-dive its BMW 801-powered predecessor with ease, and it possessed an excellent turning rate at speed. An experienced pilot could pull a tighter turn in a D-9 than he could with the BMW-powered FW-190A.


Who said it was a  direct copy? What has been said is that it's design was copied from the 190 design. And oneupped.

& unlike Tank & the Zero team, ( as far as we know), they, Grumman had a 190 on hand to dissect & use.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2005, 08:38:55 PM by agent 009 »

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #84 on: December 06, 2005, 08:50:03 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by agent 009

Who said it was a  direct copy? What has been said is that it's design was copied from the 190 design. And oneupped.


You have to be careful with terms like "design". As a Design Engineer, I view the term as more than a basic concept. Copying one of my designs would be nothing less than a patent violation, or more simply put; outright theft.

Being influenced by a design is not the same thing. We often borrow ideas from other designers, but our new product is often unrecognizable from that which inspired it. I know firsthand that no one designs in a vacuum.

Oh, Grumman did not have a 190 available to study. They had three days to examine and fly the plane at Farnborough. Hardly enough time to learn more than the general layout and concept of design. When Grumman, Hall and Gillies returned to Bethpage, they were not carrying thousands of engineering drawings. All they had were their handwritten notes.. But those notes were quite valuable in laying out their unique idea of what a super high-performance radial dogfighter should be.

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline ShortyDoowap

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 111
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #85 on: December 06, 2005, 09:06:25 PM »
Quote

These people do not work in a vaccum. Each designer is influenced by the work of those who came before him, and even his contemporaries.


Agreed.  

That the Grumman folks flew the Fw-190, and were even taken by it, is undisputed by me.  But the claim that the Bearcat was a Fw copy, or that the Fw was the impetus to design of the Bearcat,  is absurb.  Grumman didn't set out to build their own Fw-190 as some would have us believe.  They set out to build a small carrier fighter with spectacular performance.  

The impetus for the design of the Bearcat was a need.  It didn't take the examination of the Fw to realize that need.  If Grumman borrowed an idea from the Fw here and there (or from any plane for that matter), then they did no different than any other designer of any other aircraft from any other nation.  

The question remains, though, in WHAT MANNER did the Fw-190 influence the Bearcat?  Some suggest the mating of a big engine to a small air frame.  Given Grumman's July 1943 specification for a power loading of 4 lbs/hp, it stands to reason that would have been the only way to meet that specification.  It wouldn't take the examination of a Focke Wulf to draw that conclusion.   Gears mounted ahead of the main spar?  Doubtful, the Mustang had that, and the desire to keep weight down, as well as simplicity, would have been the major influence on inward retracting (instead of rotating and retracting) landing gears.  That weight consideration, as well as simplicity, was also a reason Grumman chose conventionally folding wings for the Bearcat.  

So what was it?  Maybe the influence was simply the understanding of the performance characteristics of the Fw-190, and the understanding that any new fighter produced by Grumman needed to outperform a plane it may meet in combat.   That's a pretty substantial influence.

Offline agent 009

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #86 on: December 06, 2005, 09:22:58 PM »
"But the claim that the Bearcat was a Fw copy, or that the Fw was the impetus to design of the Bearcat, is absurb."

Except for the fact that they mentioned that that was the case. The impetus part. After flying one in England.








laying out their unique idea of what a super high-performance radial dogfighter should be.

Wasn't all that unique. The overall dimensions are also "very" close to the 190.


Cat
Length 27' 6"
Height 13' 10"
Wing Span 35' 6"

FW 190 A-8
Wing span:  34 ft 5.5 in (10.49 m)  
Length:  29 ft (8.84 m)  
Height:  13 ft (3.96 m)
« Last Edit: December 06, 2005, 09:31:13 PM by agent 009 »

Offline ShortyDoowap

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 111
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #87 on: December 06, 2005, 09:29:47 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by agent 009
Why would they have any docs that mention the 190? Did "any" aviation company keep records on other airplanes that they borrowed stuff or ideas from during the war? of course not! the very idea is silly.



The GHC is a repository for documents, memorandums, drawing, letters, pictures, etc...  It is staffed by Grumman retirees.  Historical Grumman documents are retired to this location.  If you want to research a particular Grumman aircraft, that's the place to start.  And you may need go no further.   Currently, Northrop-Grumman does not maintain an archives of its own that is open to the public, or even to researchers (authors, etc).  I've checked, thoroughly, even to the extent of enlisting the considerable help of my father-in-law,  who is the head of Navy Contracts for submarines at Northrop/Grumman Newport News.  (Heck, I wasn't even able to get drawings of the old USS Ranger from Northrop Grumman , and they own the shipyard that built it.)  No luck, Grumman refers aircraft researchers to the GHC.   If memorandums or documents exist concerning the the examination (or in your words, the dissection) of the Fw-190 in 1943, the GHC would be the most likely to have it.  Of course, I've only obtained a tiny, tiny fraction of what they have, and only on those topics that interest me.   But I've never seen anything remotely official that speaks to the Fw-190 event.

Offline agent 009

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #88 on: December 06, 2005, 09:33:42 PM »
So if they examined a 190 like they say they did,even for 3 days, why is it such a suprise that they didn't carry some documents about it?

Offline ShortyDoowap

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 111
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #89 on: December 06, 2005, 09:34:27 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by agent 009
"But the claim that the Bearcat was a Fw copy, or that the Fw was the impetus to design of the Bearcat, is absurb."

Except for the fact that they mentioned that that was the case. The impetus part. After flying one in England.


laying out their unique idea of what a super high-performance radial dogfighter should be.

Wasn't all that unique. The overall dimensions are also "very" close to the 190.


Cat
Length 27' 6"
Height 13' 10"
Wing Span 35' 6" [/B]



According to Widewing, the Fw-190 was flown in September 1943.

The need for a small, high performing carrier fighter was recognized, and the the specifications set forth, in July 1943.   Read the page I posted from "Grumman Aircraft."  The Fw-190 could not have been the impetus.