Author Topic: Best Heavy Fighter  (Read 33571 times)

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #330 on: November 22, 2013, 05:34:17 PM »
Brooke, for Sabre-Fury specs see the link in post #282, this thread.

There was only LA610 and it was a company hack testing various things.

Offline J.A.W.

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #331 on: November 22, 2013, 05:39:08 PM »
The relevant reference (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/goodyear-f2g-vs-grumman-f8f-bearcat-33022-5.html#post911193) confirms the opposite of that.  It explains that it wasn't a stunt (but part of testing that they did with lots of other aircraft as well), doesn't say that there was any headwind, gives time to climb for four different tests on four different days in three different aircraft, verifies that the planes were normal Bearcats loaded with ammo, armor, and 50% fuel, and says that the FAI wasn't officiating any time-to-climb records at that time (let alone having any associated record requirements).

Do take the time to read the whole thread Brooke, the 'record' time was done into a headwind, & no, as I wrote , it didn't make any FAI record book, & the ADI control was not mil-spec standard..

Ww, if you think official USN documentation containing technical specs are just publicity material, why not discuss that with some authors of USN history & see what response you get..
"Cybermen don't make promises..
Such ideas have no value."

Offline J.A.W.

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #332 on: November 22, 2013, 05:43:45 PM »
There was only LA610 and it was a company hack testing various things.

Wrong again M.M., just read the article, the RAF didn't order any more recip's
from Hawker, & VP 207 was the 2nd Sabre Fury, which test pilot & world speed record holder Neville Duke said was the best performing recip' he'd flown..

LA 610 was in fact a Fury prototype  - which flew with all three 2,000+hp Brit recip' mills, - but was fastest when Sabre powered..
« Last Edit: November 22, 2013, 05:46:13 PM by J.A.W. »
"Cybermen don't make promises..
Such ideas have no value."

Offline Brooke

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15728
      • http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #333 on: November 22, 2013, 05:47:34 PM »
Brooke, for Sabre-Fury specs see the link in post #282, this thread.

Roger that -- I see it.  419 mph it is.  Very snappy!  I don't dispute that it was a great plane or that any of the latest-war or just-after-war prop fighters were great (P-51H, F8F, F7F, Do. 335, Fury, F2G, Spitfires/Spitefuls, etc.).

Quote
& the USAF figures give 358 knots/406 mph for max boost `51H  S.L. speed..

The actual flight-test data I posted above gives 424 mph at sea level at 90" Hg and 3000 RPM for the P-51H.  What's the link to your figures of 406 mph, and what was the manifold pressure and RPM used?

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8801
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #334 on: November 22, 2013, 05:49:22 PM »
The relevant reference (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/goodyear-f2g-vs-grumman-f8f-bearcat-33022-5.html#post911193) confirms the opposite of that.  It explains that it wasn't a stunt (but part of testing that they did with lots of other aircraft as well), doesn't say that there was any headwind, gives time to climb for four different tests on four different days in three different aircraft, verifies that the planes were normal Bearcats loaded with ammo, armor, and 50% fuel, and says that the FAI wasn't officiating any time-to-climb records at that time (let alone having any associated record requirements).

Indeed... Not a stunt.

Posted by R. Leonard:
"I am often amazed at the contortions exercised by those, who were probably, at best, babes in arms at the time of events past, or, more likely, not even a gleam in someone’s eye, to denigrate or cast aspersions, in of course their apparent expert opinion, when the events in question do not meet their preconceived notions. It is certainly gratifying to see so many skilled F8F drivers and experienced military/naval test pilots wade in with their insights. And that is about as polite as I can put it.

Let see . . . entries from Leonard pilot’s log book for November 1946 . . .

5 Nov - - F8F-1 b/n 90438 - - pilot remarks: “test climb to 10000. 2:15 to get up 1:55 to get down (wheels touching)”

8 Nov - - F8F-1 b/n 94803 - - pilot remarks: “test climb 2 mins 15 secs to 10000 from standing start - military power”

8 Nov - - F8F-1 b/n 90438 - - pilot remarks: “test for combat power. Torquemeter reading 113 and 108”

15 Nov - - F8F-1 b/n 94880 - - pilot remarks: “test combat power and general handling for climb test. 1 climb 10000 ft - 2 min”

20 Nov - - F8F-1 b/n 94880 - - pilot remarks: “Patux to Cleveland on Air Show Duty. Operation Pogo Stick”

22 Nov - - F8F-1 b/n 94880 - - pilot remarks: “climb standing start to 10000 feet 1 min 40 seconds record take off 150 feet”

As an aside, at the completion of this particular flight, Leonard had totaled 1681.6 hours. 635.3 of those were recorded in a log book lost aboard USS Yorktown in June 1942. Of the 1046.3 Midway-forward hours, all but 92.3 were in fighter types. His first flight in an F8F was on 22 Dec 1945 at NAS Patuxent, oddly enough, in b/n 90438 mentioned above.

And no, contrary to one apparent expert opinion, this was not a hold a stop watch in the other hand as the plane passes through 10000 feet.

Behind the pilot was installed a piece of equipment called a “theater”. This was a small instrument board, about one foot square, that had as it’s most important feature a movie camera that recorded time, altitude, and various goings on in the cockpit. This camera was calibrated by NAA personnel for the attempts at the Cleveland Air Show. By reviewing the film it was relatively academic to determine the time take to reach 10000 feet or 3000 meters, which ever you wanted to look at. The camera was actuated thusly: The pilot taxied the airplane to his starting point and flipped a switch to activate the camera. At that point, when the pilot releases his brakes, another switch is automatically thrown and the camera starts recording events. Simple, eh? These pilots and airplanes were from TacTest where testing airplane performance was what they did. The list of airplanes they were operating in the 1945-1950 period is lengthy and included German, Japanese, British as well as American. It was not unusual to have this “theater” equipment installed as a matter of course and it was their job to push their mounts to the limit.

Years ago, having tired of dealing with experts, an inquiry made to the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale produced the following from Thierry Montigneaux, Assistant Secretary General of the at FAI:
“The 'time to climb' record category was proposed to FAI by the National Aeronautic Association of the USA at the June 1950 FAI General Conference. It was then added to the Sporting Code.

“The first mention of a 'time to climb' world record in our books was for a flight made by a British pilot onboard a Gloster Meteor on 31th August 1951.

“No performance set in 1946 could therefore have qualified as an official ‘world’ record, as this category of record did not exist then. However, it may well be that the NAA had accepted a category of ‘national records’ for time-to-climb prior to their June 1950 proposal to FAI.”

So, in 1946 there was no “World Record” class for climb to time. No wonder no one can find one.

An inquiry to the National Aeronautic Association produced this response from Art Greenfield, Director, Contest and Records:

“It's difficult to determine from the file, but the U.S. national record in 1946 was either ‘Fastest Climb to 10,000 Feet,’ or ‘Time to Climb 3,000 Meters.’ The switch from feet to meters occurred around that time, presumably to gain acceptance from the international community at FAI.

“In any event, both performances were calculated and the time to 10,000 feet was 97.8 seconds; the time to 3,000 meters (9,843 feet) was 96.1 seconds.

“The record I quoted was set by LCDR M.W. Davenport in a Bearcat on November 22, 1946, in Cleveland."

And lastly, one evening before his passing, whilst pondering the remains of dinner, I took the opportunity to raise this subject of this long ago event with Bill Leonard, the same Cdr. Leonard who made the attempt prior to Davenport’s record. He confirmed that the only performance modification to the F8F’s was to bypass the safety lock on the emergency war power setting to allow water injection with the landing gear in the down position. These were standard F8F’s. His plane was armed, with ammo, armor in place, and loaded with 50% fuel. Butch Davenport’s F8F was configured the same only without the ammunition.

Last, obviously, I have the log book where Leonard’s flight is recorded.

Good enough? Sorry if that doesn’t match an expert analysis of internet posted performance statistics, I can't help that. Guess short of being there (and I wasn't even a gleam at the time), an official record as recorded in a pilots log and a statement from the NAA records guy will just have to do."
My regards,

Widewing

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

Offline Brooke

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15728
      • http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #335 on: November 22, 2013, 05:51:26 PM »
Do take the time to read the whole thread Brooke, the 'record' time was done into a headwind, & no, as I wrote , it didn't make any FAI record book, & the ADI control was not mil-spec standard..

You don't need to read the whole thread.  This link points right to the relevant post, so you need do nothing other than click on it and read, no searching needed.  The post is only about half a typewritten page in length.  It shows exactly what I posted above:  no mention of headwinds, was no FAI record book:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/goodyear-f2g-vs-grumman-f8f-bearcat-33022-5.html#post911193

What do you mean by "ADI control"?

Offline J.A.W.

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #336 on: November 22, 2013, 05:59:24 PM »
ADI [anti-detonant-injection/MW-50]= 'wet' for max boost WEP, & the stunt F8F had its control re-rigged from mil-spec to allow max power from 1st throttle opening, not post wheels up..

That ww2aircraft post links to further discussion which does disclose the stunt nature of the time-to-climb 'record'..

& Ww, does that last post of yours mean you are going to admit you were wrong about your  'FIA record' claim?..
 
Brooke that SAC [see post # 321, this thread] document has the actual `51H service performance figures, is the graph you posted N.A.A. manufacturers data, not perhaps quite as reliable?..
« Last Edit: November 22, 2013, 06:14:08 PM by J.A.W. »
"Cybermen don't make promises..
Such ideas have no value."

Offline Brooke

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15728
      • http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #337 on: November 22, 2013, 06:00:16 PM »
who changed the topic from `51H vs F4U-4 to F8F?

All of that is off topic, as it's a topic about "best heavy fighter", which probably precludes P-51H.

Still, interesting discussion, though, so I'm glad things strayed off topic.

We can always bring it back on topic and discuss the other stuff, too.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #338 on: November 22, 2013, 06:01:00 PM »
F8F was a very impressive machine...


...but not a heavy fighter.

 :P
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline J.A.W.

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #339 on: November 22, 2013, 06:03:32 PM »
Yes, the `51H & F8F were both regarded as too lightweight to hack mud-moving duty in Korea.. Sea Fury did it though..
"Cybermen don't make promises..
Such ideas have no value."

Offline J.A.W.

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #340 on: November 22, 2013, 06:06:56 PM »
Can anyone find/post a documented faster S.L. speed for a heavy fighter than that Tempest 6 doing 418 mph?
"Cybermen don't make promises..
Such ideas have no value."

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8801
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #341 on: November 22, 2013, 06:10:07 PM »
ADI = 'wet' for max boost WEP, & the stunt F8F had its control re-rigged from mil-spec to allow max power from 1st throttle opening, not post wheels up..


Give me the aircraft schematic and 10 minutes and I could bypass the "weight on gear" switch to allow voltage to the ADI solenoid with the gear down. Any Plane Captain (ground crew chief) could do that too. Understand even without bypassing the "weight on gear" switch, ADI is available as soon as the main struts extend enough allow the gear microswitch to close. Thus, normally you can have ADI with the gear down, but not bearing the weight of the aircraft.
My regards,

Widewing

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

Offline Brooke

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15728
      • http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #342 on: November 22, 2013, 06:15:38 PM »
ADI = 'wet' for max boost WEP, & the stunt F8F had its control re-rigged from mil-spec to allow max power from 1st throttle opening, not post wheels up..

Ah, cc.

Well, that is easy to recalculate if you don't like it.  You will find it doesn't matter much.  The difference between that plane (using WEP from standstill) and one using WEP only upon gear up is mainly the difference between time to gear up using WEP and time to gear up not using WEP.  You can come up with a conservative estimate of that.  Take the time for a Bearcat to go from stopped to gear up -- that's 14 seconds in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5HfqMtksBI).  Let's assume a Bearcat with WEP can go from stopped to gear up in half that time (probably I'm giving the WEP way more credit than due by this estimate).  That's 7 seconds.  Thus, add 7 second to the time to climb, and you have a conservative estimate of what it would be for a standard Bearcat using WEP only on gear up.

Offline J.A.W.

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #343 on: November 22, 2013, 06:17:35 PM »
Yes, & who signs off on the S.O.P. violation & faces court-martial proceedings if there is a take-off crash?

& Ww, maybe you'd like to go on about 'flimsy' F8F wing tips breaking off & killing pilots..

What calc's do you have for difference in available thrust at [wet] WEP for take off vs mil-spec WEP [dry, no ADI]?

What is the thrust/acceleration time/speed/distance equation?
« Last Edit: November 22, 2013, 06:23:41 PM by J.A.W. »
"Cybermen don't make promises..
Such ideas have no value."

Offline Brooke

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15728
      • http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #344 on: November 22, 2013, 06:23:28 PM »
Also, although the main reference on the time-to-climb tests does not say there was a headwind, like with WEP on roll vs. WEP on gear up, it doesn't matter much.

The time difference between a plane taking off with the headwind and one without is no more than the time for a plane in no wind to accelerate to the speed of the headwind.  If the headwind is, say, 30 mph, a Bearcat accelerates to 30 mph in, what, 2-3 seconds?  If you want to account for a nonstated 30 mph headwind, add 3 seconds to the times to climb.