« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 ... 20   Go Down

Author Topic: Myth or fact > F8F  (Read 16136 times)

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #105 on: December 07, 2005, 05:34:22 AM »
Quote
a6m?


I can't find anything showing a solid main wingspar.  Plenty of references to the cockpit design reenforcing the wing.  Completely different though from a solid main wingspar.

All the best,

Crumpp
Logged

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #106 on: December 07, 2005, 06:38:57 AM »
rgr. Anyway I have the book back next week.
Might have a look in the meantime.
(just went shopping...books....again!)
So is Neil's graph fundamentally wrong?
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5743
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #107 on: December 07, 2005, 06:57:21 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
Name some WWII fighters then that had solid main wingspars.  


At least Brewster Buffalo, VL Myrsky and Fokker D.XXI have it.
Logged
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #108 on: December 07, 2005, 09:54:42 AM »
DEFINATELY NOT a FW 190 unique invention then :D
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #109 on: December 07, 2005, 10:23:50 AM »
Quote
DEFINATELY NOT a FW 190 unique invention then


According to the USAAF, the FW-190 wing construction is unique.

While I don't know about the others, the Brewster does not have a solid main wing spar.  It has a continuous main box.  This is constructed of built up web and cap construction.

All the best,

Crumpp
Logged

Offline Neil Stirling1

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 105
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #110 on: December 07, 2005, 11:37:58 AM »
Crump re-read the chart, 434mph clean 421mph with 3 wing racks.

Neil.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2005, 11:43:43 AM by Neil Stirling1 »
Logged

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5743
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #111 on: December 07, 2005, 11:50:41 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
While I don't know about the others, the Brewster does not have a solid main wing spar.  It has a continuous main box.  This is constructed of built up web and cap construction.


Yep, I guess it depends on the terminology. Jukka Raunio uses finnish term "kotelosalko" ....ie. something like "a box spar". After the he continues using the term "spar".

Just by looking at the structure looks like a continuous spar which consists of two thicker and several thinner subsections.

Fokker uses a true box spar and Myrsky has two continous main spars.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2005, 11:54:07 AM by Wmaker »
Logged
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #112 on: December 07, 2005, 12:09:25 PM »
Quote
Crump re-read the chart, 434mph clean 421mph with 3 wing racks.


Your chart does not convey that impression then Neil.  It does not list the speeds of the clean configuration FW-190A9 and only compares the FW-190A9 with ETC 501.  

When you add that curve it becomes clear that the F8F and FW-190A9 are very comparible aircraft even using Grumman's data.

Using other agencies testing of the Bearcat, the FW-190A9 is superior in speed.

The weights are also comparible as many seem to quote the empty weight of the F8F instead of it's loaded weight.

All the best,

Crumpp
Logged

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #113 on: December 07, 2005, 12:12:48 PM »
Quote
Just by looking at the structure looks like a continuous spar which consists of two thicker and several thinner subsections.


It's actually jointed between the center section/wings.  A strong structure without a doubt.  If not for the lack of armour, the F2A-1 Brewster was a surprisingly nimble aircraft which many compare to the A6M!

Quote
Fokker uses a true box spar and Myrsky has two continous main spars.


Do not have much information to dispute this other than the Myrsky had wooden construction.  I would be very careful though.  A continous spar is not the same as a one piece spar.

All the best,

Crumpp
« Last Edit: December 07, 2005, 12:16:05 PM by Crumpp »
Logged

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5743
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #114 on: December 07, 2005, 12:30:31 PM »
Yep, Brewster Model 239 has just a tad higher wing loading than A6M2. According to Boyington for example it sure was a very maneuverable fighter "Those little ***ks could turn inside a phone booth" pretty much were his words. :)

With 1200hp Cyclone instead of the 1000hp one it would have been even more interesting plane considering its opposition. :)

Those Myrsky's spars are wooden singlepiece spars...used a different term. Yep, I see the difference between those terms...just typed it quickly.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2005, 01:00:07 PM by Wmaker »
Logged
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #115 on: December 07, 2005, 12:32:59 PM »
Crumpp I've trouble visualizing this part, do you have any image/ blue print with it ?
Logged

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #116 on: December 07, 2005, 12:33:05 PM »
But the buffalo didn't even have 1000hp, by the time it got past 900 hp it was weighted down heavily with armor and other stuff, and no longer flew very well. So 1200 hp wouldn't mean much if it still flew like a p39 :P
Logged

Offline Neil Stirling1

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 105
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #117 on: December 07, 2005, 12:47:04 PM »
Crump,

navaer-1335 D 1st June 1945.

F8F-1 9,386lbs 183 galls fuel 10 galls oil 1200 rds .50 cal.
1 fuselage rack and 2 wing racks.
421mph 19700ft
382 mph SL
Time to 10,000ft 2.6 mins
Time to 20,000ft 5.7 mins
Rate of climb at SL 4,570ft/min.

1 fuselage rack.
9,334 lbs
Fuel oil and ammo same as above.
429mph at 19,900ft
391mph at SL
Time to 10,000ft 2.5 mins
Time to 20,000ft 5.7 mins
Rate of climb at SL 4,600ft/min

Clean condition with all bomb racks and sway bracing removed. Vmax/SL = 394 mph Vmax=434mph/19,800ft


R-2800-34W

2,380hp at SL
2,400hp at 1000ft
1790hp at 9,500ft
1,850hp at 15,500ft.

Fw 190 A-9 with ETC 501.




Neil
« Last Edit: December 07, 2005, 12:55:46 PM by Neil Stirling1 »
Logged

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5743
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #118 on: December 07, 2005, 12:58:55 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Krusty
But the buffalo didn't even have 1000hp, by the time it got past 900 hp it was weighted down heavily with armor and other stuff, and no longer flew very well. So 1200 hp wouldn't mean much if it still flew like a p39 :P


Read up on the subject.
Logged
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #119 on: December 07, 2005, 01:24:00 PM »
i.e. there were more brewsters than just in the U.S. ;)
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 ... 20   Go Up
« previous next »