Author Topic: The Ultimate Perk (Read 1935 times)

Hamish · « **Reply #15 on:** October 31, 2000, 03:52:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Vermillion:

When I get a little free time, I want to do a F7F, F8F, F4U-4, F2G discussion like I did above. I think it would be very interesting.

Why the Bearcat would come out to be the best of them all, of course

How could something with bent wings be better than a plane named after a ferocious animal?

Hamish!

M.C.202 · « **Reply #16 on:** October 31, 2000, 06:00:00 PM »

The "I wanna Uber Ride" Tigercat is the F7F-1. Who needs a "guy in back" or radar instead of four .50cal mgs?

F7F-1

13,100lbs empty, 22,560lbs loaded
5.37 dry power to weight, 4.7 with wep.
455 wing area, so 49.58 lb sqft

F2G-2
10,429lbs empty, 15,422 loaded
5.14 power to weight
314 wing area, so 49.11lb sq ft.

I'll take the F7F and give up the sea level speed for the better p/w ratio and the four
20mm cannon and four .50 cal mgs all in the nose area (wing guns inboard of prop)
Better vis over the nose too.

------------------
M.C.202
Dino in Reno

juzz · « **Reply #17 on:** October 31, 2000, 06:18:00 PM »

Hey Vermillion, you have to read that F7F .pdf file a bit closer to get the "real" performance numbers.

1. Powerloadings are given for BHP at full throttle height. Ie: for 1850HP, not 2400HP. Corrected powerloading at 1,000ft is 4.5lb/HP.

2. Top speed is given with bomb pylons attached. In a clean configuration S/L speed is 369mph, top speed is 435mph at 22,000ft.

As for that super climbing Bearcat. 115ft takeoff! That's about the same as a Storch isn't it? This was NOT a standard aircraft, not by a long shot. Hmmm, I recall a Bearcat did 540mph at low altitude after the war too...

M.C.202; the F7F-3 was a single seater, the -2N,-3N,-4N were the twin-seater nightfighter versions.

[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 10-31-2000).]

M.C.202 · « **Reply #18 on:** October 31, 2000, 06:42:00 PM »

Juzz said:
> M.C.202; the F7F-3 was a single seater, the -2N,-3N,-4N were the twin-seater nightfighter versions.

My bad :-), but it was heavier.
So, do we get one ? -1 or -3 :-)

------------------
M.C.202
Dino in Reno

SnakeEyes · « **Reply #19 on:** October 31, 2000, 07:51:00 PM »

Yah, I'm pretty sure that Bearkitty was stripped down... but the original still humped arse pretty well. I think the real difference comes down to overall maneuverability (granted, this is a complex issue), which the Cat is probably going to win. Plus, the Cat gets important points for pilot SA and its relatively small size.

------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=

M.C.202 · « **Reply #20 on:** November 01, 2000, 01:21:00 AM »

SnakeEyes said:
> I think the real difference comes down to overall maneuverability (granted, this is a
> complex issue), which the Cat is probably going to win. Plus, the Cat gets important
> points for pilot SA and its relatively small size.

Bet you can get better vision during a high G lead turn with the F7F. And power to keep turning with two props to transmit the thrust.

And just think of when ya pull the trigger... :-) Bliss, just pure bliss ;=>

------------------
M.C.202
Dino in Reno

SnakeEyes · « **Reply #21 on:** November 01, 2000, 05:31:00 AM »

Hehe... oops. When I say "The Cat", I always mean Bearcat.

------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=

SnakeEyes · « **Reply #22 on:** November 01, 2000, 06:10:00 AM »

Verm:

I found stats on the Bearkitty at sea level from the Baugher MB.5 comparison page (of all places):

Powered by a 2100 hp Pratt & Whitney R-2800-34W eighteen-cylinder radial air-cooled engine. Armed with four 0.5-in machine guns. Maximum speed was 382 mph at sea level, 421 mph at 19,700 feet. Initial climb rate was 4570 feet/minute. Service ceiling was 38,700 feet. Weights were 7070 lbs empty, 9836 lbs normal loaded. Wing area was 244 square feet.

Wingloading of 40.3 for Bearcat gives it considerably better turning ability than the F2G, and with those stubby wings, I'd guess its rollrate is comparable to that of the F4U and 190.

------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=

[This message has been edited by SnakeEyes (edited 11-01-2000).]

Vermillion · « **Reply #23 on:** November 01, 2000, 07:37:00 AM »

MC202, what kind of numbers did you us to calculate the Powerloading of the F2G? Using the weights you provided, I get:

F2G: 3,500hp at SL
empty weight: 10429lbs = 2.97 lbs/hp empty
Loaded weight: 15422 = 4.40 lbs/hp loaded

Compared to the 4.7 lbs of the Tigercat (your calculations)

Also your loaded weight for the F2G seems a little high to me, but I would have to go back and check myself. (comes out to almost 800 gallons of fuel, sure that isn't a drop tank config or a max loaded weight instead of a clean fighter max fuel weight, like I stated for the F7F?) For instance the "max weight" of the F7F is 25,846lbs versus the 21,476lbs of the clean fighter full fuel.

So the F2G accelerates better, has better max speed at altitude and SL, better rollrate (twin engine configuration), and they have comparable sustained turn rates. So the F7F has better firepower, and visibility. Me, I would take the F2G.

SnakeEyes, Yah your numbers look like what I remember. Take the Bearcat if you want to turn, if you want speed take the F2G. Otherwise they are quite comparable.

Juzz, admittedly, I just took the published Powerloading for the Clean fighter configuration #1 from the Navy's own test data sheets.

As to what you call its "true" max speeds, well I disagree

From the test data sheets, it seems to me that 369/425 is a special configuration, and that the condition #1 is the "official" configuration, that would have been used in combat.

Anyway you look at it guys, the F2G is at least equal too the F7F, except firepower, and is very superior in low level speeds (especially where it counts) and handling (rollrate).

Nah Nah I win.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 11-01-2000).]

SKurj · « **Reply #24 on:** November 01, 2000, 08:34:00 AM »

Hornet!!

Great one fer the limey's!!

SKurj

SnakeEyes · « **Reply #25 on:** November 01, 2000, 09:09:00 AM »

Heh Verm - Yuppers, they are both very good aircraft.

My point is that H2H, the Bearcat is quite probably the superior A2A aircraft under 20K. It is going to be able to outclimb, outturn, outaccelerate, and outmaneuver the F2G pretty much across the board. It also has better visibility for the pilot and is a smaller target. With those stubby wings and it's "homage" to the 190, roll is probably at least equal to that of the Corsair (I'm guessing here). Sure the F2G might be able to dive away, but 15 IAS level speed doesn't buy you much. Certainly the F2G would have been the more versatile of the two, with profoundly greater A2G capabilities.

Still, I'd give my left one to be able to fly a good FM for either one of them in a either WB or AH.

------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=

Vermillion · « **Reply #26 on:** November 01, 2000, 09:25:00 AM »

Snakeeyes,

Btw, my comparison in the last post was Tigercat vs F2G.

Whats the horsepower output of the Bearcats engine agin?

Your numbers: 9836 lbs / 2100 hp = Powerloading of 4.69 lbs/hp compared to the 4.40 lbs/hp of the F2G

True the F2G weighs alot more, but it has a hell of alot more power too. From the numbers I have seen (above) the F2G should out accelerate the Bearcat.

So the F2G has top speed both at SL and Altitude, plus the higher acceleration. While the Bearcat beats it hands down in turning ability. Otherwise they are quite similar.

So it comes down to your style. Do you want speed and acceleration for E fighting in the F2G, or would you prefer to turn alot more in the Bearcat. History will tell you which one wins, in a real conflict.

And you don't think 15mph will make much of a difference?

Well, thats almost exactly the top speed difference on the deck between the P-51D and the Fw190A8, F4U-1C, Yak-9U and several others.

And the Pony regularly uses it speed advantage to run away from all those other aircraft daily.

Trust me, it don't shound like much, but in a extended tail chase even 5 mph makes a difference, and 15mph is a huge advantage.

Quote

Still, I'd give my left one to be able to fly a good FM for either one of them in a either WB or AH

I couldn't agree more !!!

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 11-01-2000).]

SnakeEyes · « **Reply #27 on:** November 01, 2000, 12:09:00 PM »

I'd do some looking around on the horsepower/acceleration issue. I don't know whether that depicts military power or with wep... plus I don't know how much issues like drag play into this. My understanding is that the F8F was just about the fastest acclerating aircraft around. But that could certainly be a flawed understanding.

As a dedicated 51 driver, I'd have to say that diving is a bit overrated. Sure, it's nice when you need to go home. But diving it usually only saves your bacon, it rarely earns it. Getting over the bad guys and being able to convert E to Angles is what earns the bacon... and the Bearcat is in the sweetspot here.

I think they are just gonna need to model both, so we can figure exactly where these two birds stand... don't you think?

------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=

M.C.202 · « **Reply #28 on:** November 01, 2000, 12:57:00 PM »

Vermillion said :
> MC202, what kind of numbers did you us to calculate the Powerloading of the F2G? Using the weights you provided, I get:

> F2G: 3,500hp at SL
> empty weight: 10429lbs = 2.97 lbs/hp empty
> Loaded weight: 15422 = 4.40 lbs/hp loaded

Ah, here is my error, I used the HP listed in the first two books I had at hand, 3,000hp not 3,500hp. "Fighting Aircraft of WWII" and "American Aircraft of WWII, in Colour"

> Compared to the 4.7 lbs of the Tigercat (your calculations)

> So the F2G accelerates better, has better max speed at altitude and SL, better rollrate (twin engine configuration),
> and they have comparable sustained turn rates. So the F7F has better firepower, and
> visibility. Me, I would take the F2G.

Loaded weight for the F7F-1 is lighter than the -2,-3,or -4, (or the N of each) so S/L climb rate of 4,540 feet for the -2N will be higher for the -1.

I have not been able to find sea level speed for the F7F-1, the -1N had the radar pod, so speed for it is not the same.
The others were heaver, and higher weight takes more lift, so speed at higher weight will add more drag(angle of attack and trim settings), and be less (by just a little, but 5 mph is 5mph).

Any -1 numbers (clean) are looked for :-)

And the GUNS..... :-)

------------------
M.C.202
Dino in Reno

juzz · « **Reply #29 on:** November 01, 2000, 08:52:00 PM »

Wrong again Vermillion.

If you notice, the F8F-1 uses the same R-2800-34W as the F7F-3. Output is 2400HP with MW 50, err... water-methanol injection. Therefore powerloading at 9836lb loaded weight = 4.1lb/HP. Muahaha!

[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 11-01-2000).]