Myth or fact > F8F

[ShortyDoowap]

Originally posted by agent 009
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?

Ok, I 've never posted at this site because I don't play Aces High, and I have nothing to say about that game.  I decided to post in this thread because it was a very interesting subject.  But now you are badgering, and responding to you is becoming a bore.   It's clear you've already drawn your conclusions.   Believe what you like.

[agent 009]

I'm not badgering, they admit having a 190 on hand. their admission is enough to prove they had one. your claim that there is no document of it does not prove they didn't have one.

Here's some wing load data: Bearcat = 53.1 lbs/sq ft; Fw 190 A-6 = 46.3 lbs/sq ft.
A-8 Wing loading: 277 kg/m˛ (57 lb/ft˛)
 
 
 
In a message dated 8/31/2005 10:42:07 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email]
FW 190
Wingspan 34.ft 5.5 in.
Length 29 ft 1.5 inch
Height 13 ft o inch.
 
Bearcat
Wingspan 35 ft 10 inch
Length 28 ft 3 inch
Height 13 ft 10 inch.


OK, similarities, 4 20 mil cannon on later models, streamlined radial, lightweight frame, wing design similarities covered by Crump,( Mustang wing design not the same). overall dimensions very similiar. Wing shape near identical. wide track landing gear. Wing loading similiar. canopy somewhat similiar.

[agent 009]

"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."

This below proves you wrong Shorty.
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.

Catalyst is a similiar word to impetus.

Heck the timing couldn't be more perfect. They deside they need a small fast intercepter to replace the Hellcat in July, 2 months later In Sept they fly the 190 & wa la, they have exactly the perfect model to base their new design needs on.

[ShortyDoowap]

Originally posted by agent 009
I'm not badgering, they admit having a 190 on hand. their admission is enough to prove they had one. your claim that there is no document of it does not prove they didn't have one.

Here's some wing load data: Bearcat = 53.1 lbs/sq ft; Fw 190 A-6 = 46.3 lbs/sq ft.
 
 
 
In a message dated 8/31/2005 10:42:07 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email]
FW 190
Wingspan 34.ft 5.5 in.
Length 29 ft 1.5 inch
Height 13 ft o inch.
 
Bearcat
Wingspan 35 ft 10 inch
Length 28 ft 3 inch
Height 13 ft 10 inch.


OK, similarities, 4 20 mil cannon on later models, streamlined radial, lightweight frame, wing design similarities covered by Crump, Mustang wing design not the same. overall dimensions very similiar. Wing shape near identical. wide track landing gear. Wing loading similiar. canopy somewhat similiar.

Now you are being plain silly.  

Loaded weight of the Bearcat was 9,300 lbs.  Wing area was 244 sq ft.  That's a wing loading of 38.11 lbs / sq foot.  Wet WEP HP was around 2,300 hp.   That's a powerloading of around 4.04 lbs / HP.

[agent 009]

No, look at the wing layouts earlier in the thread. very similiar, nothing silly about it.


OK, here is the key. You gotta read it man.
 Both Gillies and Hall evaluated the Fw 190 and found it to be the aircraft they would have liked to have designed themselves. It was exactly what the Hellcat follow-on aircraft should be.



In early 1943, Grumman officials were invited to England to see the captured fighters of the Axis powers and to fly some of them. The test team included: Leroy Grumman, president of Grumman and test pilot during and after WW I; Bud Gillies, vice president flight operations and a test pilot current in all American airplanes at that time; and Bob Hall, chief engineerexperimental, a famous test pilot of Grumman and other airplanes of the Gee Bee era.

Of all the airplanes they saw, they were most fascinated with the Focke-Wulf 190. It not only offered sprightly performance, but it also had excellent flight characteristics with a gross weight of 8,750 pounds and only 1,730hp. The Hellcat was 3,200 pounds heavier with just 270hp more. Both Gillies and Hall evaluated the Fw 190 and found it to be the aircraft they would have liked to have designed themselves. It was exactly what the Hellcat follow-on aircraft should be. The only things the Fw 190 lacked were a good gunnery-lead computing angle of vision over the nose and a structure that would withstand carrier operations.

The Focke-Wulf impressed them so much they felt compelled to hurry home and put together an airplane of this gross weight in time for the water-injected Pratt & Whitney R-2800 C model engine of 2,400hp (War Emergency Power) to be installed. This would give our naval aviators a big performance increase over the newer Japanese fighters and would still retain the proven performance of the P&W R-2800 series production engines installed in the Hellcat.

The F8F design was started immediately on the trio's return. Mr. Grumman took a direct hand in its design. As the design progressed, it became obvious that meeting the 8,750-pound gross weight of the Focke-Wulf would be difficult. The structure required to withstand the loads encountered during carrier operations hadn't been required in the Fw 190 and would impose significant weight penalties on the new design.

& here is the last key..
The F8F design was started immediately on the trio's return

on trio's return, not July. End of story.

[Squire]

Im sure the design of the nose had a lot to do with forward visibility on CV landings, not gunnery issues. One of the reasons the USN gave the F4U-1 a hard time on getting CV qualified, was the long nose. The RN adapted a particular landing technique for it.

[agent 009]

Well, here's another wing loading spec. nowhere near 38.11

Historical and Current Conflicts Forum  
... Do 335. F8F Bearcat. --Toughest Aircraft-- ... loaded to its normal gross weight of 105,000 pounds, the wing loading is 61.4 pounds per square foot. ...

Will seek more.

[agent 009]

Well, havin trouble with finding more wing loading data. But here is an exerpt from Corky Meyer, ( you'll note he mentions the 190 ). In a 1998 Flight Journal article.


The timing of getting the Bearcat to the fleet was perfect. Not only was it an exciting airplane to fly (one could even see the Focke-Wulf heritage), but it was also 47 knots faster than the Hellcat, without water injection, and took off in 200 feet of carrier-deck space compared to the Hellcat's 325-feet requirement. It had an amazing rate of climb of 5,340 feet per minute, which was more than twice the Hellcat's! It had the fastest rate of climb of any propeller-driven fighter in the War.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by ShortyDoowap
Ok, I 've never posted at this site because I don't play Aces High, and I have nothing to say about that game.  I decided to post in this thread because it was a very interesting subject.  But now you are badgering, and responding to you is becoming a bore.   It's clear you've already drawn your conclusions.   Believe what you like.

Exactly... When (of all people) Hohun threatens to put me on his ignore list (as if I give a rat's arse) I gave up. I knew no matter how absurd and without merit their defiant claims were they'd never even listen. "Oh my god!! It's got a solid spar under the fuselage!!! It's a direct copy of the 190!!!" bulls***. As has been mentioned MANY planes had that, WELL before the Fw190. I call it what it is -- absurd, and I'm heckled for it. So screw 'em. I'll not play their game. I generally only participate in threads that are open to discussion

[agent 009]

It is open to discussion, & speaking for myself, I believe what Corky Meyer says & the Grumman engineers said. Based on what they've said, the Bearcat was very much inspired & influenced by the 190. Period.

&  It is similiar to the 190 in several ways as described above. designed for carrier use, so yes some differences as well. But again NASM & Meyer have more clout than anyone here. I don't say that to be offensive, I say it cause it is reality.

P.S. Wildcat ace Gaylen has also commented on this Bearcat 190 subject. he was in on the Corsair's front canopy design. He was one "who was there" who says, although they don't like to admit it, the cat was based on the 190. Will look for article. Admiral Gaylen is his name 98% sure.

[agent 009]

Here we go, Gayler, not Gaylen. Cat was based on 190 even though they don't like to admit it.

Well, I'll stick with Admiral Gayler. He was there, You weren't. He said it was based on 190, I believe him.
 
http://www.aviation-history.com/airmen/coralsea.htm -

His comment was in a 'Military History' magazine article from few months ago.

Now perhaps we can cool off & forget it. I think the case is settled.

[Neil Stirling1]

Crump post some better A-9 data and I will add it to my home made graph.

F8F-1, 9,386lbs is fully loaded with 3 racks. Vrs a fully loaded A-9. What would you have me do?

BTW I included the higher engine rating for the A-9

Neil.

[Crumpp]

MANY planes had that, WELL before the Fw190.

Name some WWII fighters then that had solid main wingspars.  The reason it was not done was the difficulty in repairing damaged aircraft.  Not something generally desired in a Military aircraft and a departure for Tank from one of the design concepts of the Focke Wulf 190.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Angus]

a6m?

[Crumpp]

Crump post some better A-9 data and I will add it to my home made graph.

I don't need to post better data, Neil.  Everything is already there.  I don't see any better F8F data, just your reference.  

F8F-1, 9,386lbs is fully loaded with 3 racks. Vrs a fully loaded A-9. What would you have me do?

You will have to post that one along with aircraft configuration.  I can't find ANY data to support the 434mph with three wingracks.  Even the much lighter XF8F clean could not approach that speed.  So I have to wonder where in the percentage range this Bearcat data you present falls.

Now the 434 seems very plausible for a clean configuration F8F-1 under normal Grumman testing standards.  Which we know hardly represents a frontline aircraft.

 

Engine: 2,100hp Pratt & Whitney R-2800-34W Double Wasp 18-cylinder radial piston engine
    Weight: Empty 7,070 lbs., Max Takeoff 12,947 lbs.
    Wing Span: 35ft. 10in.
    Length: 28ft. 3in.
    Height: 13ft. 10in.
    Performance:
        Maximum Speed at 19,700ft: 421mph
        Cruising Speed: 163mph
        Initial Climb Rate: 4570 feet per minute
        Ceiling: 38,700ft
        Range: 1,105 miles
    Armament:
        Four 20mm cannon
        Hardpoints for two 1,000lb bombs, or four 127mm (0.5in) rockets, or two 150-gal fuel tanks

http://www.warbirdalley.com/bearcat.htm

Which matches everyone elses flight tested data on the Bearcat.  I don't see replacing 6 slightly smaller diameter holes with 4 larger ones creating a 10+ mph speed difference.

So the "lightweight" Bearcat weighs in at 4,257.42 kilograms.  Not much "lighter" than the FW-190A9.  In fact it has the almost the exact same weight as the FW-190A8 at 4272Kg!

All the best,

Crumpp