Grumman Rules the Sky

[Brooke]

You are wrong, Brooke, since - just as today - if you want an FAI record, & even establish a new one..

FAI didn't keep time-to-climb records back then, as has been pointed out many times.  FAI is irrelevant to this.

What has been established unarguably is that the test was done as part of a military-testing program, was done with a standard f8f, is not affected significantly by headwind (even if there was one -- there is no statement of it that I saw other than by you) as proven with math and physics, and is not affected significantly by WEP from power up instead of just from gear up as proven with math and physics.  Any statements contrary to these are falsehoods.

[Brooke]

Well Brooke - if you don't think a ~5% difference is mathematically significant,
you'd  better not tell the IRS that.. L.O.L..

See references above.

Headwind (if there was one) add a couple seconds to time to climb.

WEP, add 1 second.

A few seconds longer on the time to climb number is not significant to the conclusion.

[J.A.W.]

Brooke, wrong again.. add cheat times for engine (WEP & wind chill factors), roll out & W.W.'s wind test results..

The mil-spec Standard Aircraft Characteristics tests are not done with stripped-out juiced-up stunt planes.

As those posted documents show, a regular F8F stocker wont duplicate that stunt climb rate..

The FAI would have considered a new record bid, as they had done for decades previously..

There wasn't one made by the USN for that airshow ( not Patuxent test facility)  stunt climb..

The RAF did a few years later, however & got an officially ratified FAI record....one that was quicker, too..

[WWhiskey]

Brooke, wrong again.. add cheat times for engine (WEP & wind chill factors), roll out & W.W.'s wind test results..

The mil-spec Standard Aircraft Characteristics tests are not done with stripped-out juiced-up stunt planes.

As those posted documents show, a regular F8F stocker wont duplicate that stunt climb rate..

The FAI would have considered a new record bid, as they had done for decades previously..

There wasn't one made by the USN for that airshow ( not Patuxent test facility)  stunt climb..

The RAF did a few years later, however & got an officially ratified FAI record....one that was quicker, too..

my wind tests showed a 1.8 second decrease at 40 MPH head wind on a 180 second trip or. 1%, given that the margin of error is greater than that as shown by the first and second flight and adding to the fact that the third flight was slower then the first two even with a 25 MPH headwind, for all relative testing they are virtually identical ! My test results don't help your argument!
I have no real history of the p-51h or it's official flight test results, if you've posted them and they are certified to meet all your specs then good for you, I don't understand tho why we are still arguing this point in this forum? Neither plane is in this game, you don't play this game and this thread has nothing to do with game play!
 

[J.A.W.]

Ok I wasnt gonna sleep anyway so i did it for ya!

Yak-3 full fuel from the tower full throttle to east runway film starts automatically every time so there is no question of error on my part
I did not measure anything as far as roll out to wheels up,, but I have the films and will send them to anyone who wants to see them,, they are AH films

run 1 ;test  0 wind                       time to 10k 3.02 minutes
run 2 ; actual -----   0 wind          time to 10k 3.03 minutes
run 3 ; actual  25mph head wind     time to 10k 3.04 minutes
run 4 ; actual 40mph head wind      time to 10k 3.00 minutes

no real difference in any of the settings from 0 to 45 MPH  If I need to check for a higher speed wind,, just let me know!

I had the Yak already in the hanger so its what i used,, to check the game against reality  Id need the real planes numbers and weight!

W.W., best time is run 4 - at 40mph headwind, by .04 mins..

[J.A.W.]

& W.W., the other objections as posted are 'irrelevant' ( as Brooke would put it) -to the thread topic..

[BaldEagl]

W.W., best time is run 4 - at 40mph headwind, by .04 mins..

J, You do realize that .04 mins = 2.4 Seconds, a variation on 3.00 mins of 1.333% right?  So where did your 5% claim come from?

[J.A.W.]

Well Baldy - since it is of interest to you..

As relating to the stunt-cat time-to-climb..

Brooke reckoned a WEP run from get-go, plus roll-out into a cold dense headwind was worth several seconds..

& the aircooled R-2800 can run at max possible out-put the whole way..

Since the stunt-cat was about twice as quick to 10,000ft as the Yak, those saved seconds add up to ~5%..

Not an insignificant advantage at all, albeit its a cheat..

[BaldEagl]

Well Baldy - since it is of interest to you..

As relating to the stunt-cat time-to-climb..

Brooke reckoned a WEP run from get-go, plus roll-out into a cold dense headwind was worth several seconds..

& the aircooled R-2800 can run at max possible out-put the whole way..

Since the stunt-cat was about twice as quick to 10,000ft as the Yak, those saved seconds add up to ~5%..

Not an insignificant advantage at all, albeit its a cheat..

The headwind was proved by the very tests you qouted as reducing the climb rate by 1.333% or 2.4 seconds.  Brook guessed 3 seconds... close enough.

Cold and dense... ok fine.  That wasn't ever in your argument before but the reduction in time to climb will be marginal.

As to max possible output the whole way you don't really expect us to believe no other plane can run WEP for three minutes?  Right.

And what the hell does a Yak now have to do with any of this.

Now go along for good this time troll.

[J.A.W.]

Oh Baldy.. stop.. its too funny..

Reducing time-to-climb = increased climb rate..

Yak was used since no F8F is available in A-H,

Cold stiff November wind off the lake was always there, even if you weren't

Stop trolling now will you..

[Brooke]

Brooke, wrong again.. add cheat times for engine (WEP & wind chill factors), roll out & W.W.'s wind test results..

So, what is the difference in time between using WEP until wheels up and not using WEP until wheels up?  In one case it is 14 - 13 (1 second), and in the other case it is 15 - 14 (1 second).  In either case, the difference is 1 second.

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.

The mil-spec Standard Aircraft Characteristics tests are not done with stripped-out juiced-up stunt planes.

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).

As those posted documents show, a regular F8F stocker wont duplicate that stunt climb rate..

See quote above.

The FAI would have considered a new record bid, as they had done for decades previously..

The FAI, which didn't have a program for keeping track of time to climb records, would have considered a time to climb record?  Sorry, but this is purely speculation on your part, and you can't go back in time to give such a speculation any support; but it is irrelevant anyway.  The test was done.  The data was collected.

And that's that.

[J.A.W.]

Brooke, seriously - if you want to know how to apply for an FAI record,

Whether beating an existing one, or establishing a new one - look up the FAI site, its all there..

No speculation at all, the opposite in fact.. For an FAI certified record..

The USN would've had to comply with their stipulated requirements - just the same as you, or  I, now,

 Or Glenn Curtiss in 1909..

[Brooke]

Brooke, seriously - if you want to know how to apply for an FAI record,

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

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."

As has been said many times, any talk of FAI is irrelevant.

All that matters is the data from the test and the conditions of the test.

[BaldEagl]

Oh Baldy.. stop.. its too funny..

Reducing time-to-climb = increased climb rate..

Yak was used since no F8F is available in A-H,

Cold stiff November wind off the lake was always there, even if you weren't

Stop trolling now will you..

What is it you don't understand about math... oh wait... I know... everything.

[J.A.W.]

Hey, Brooke  - the whole FAI thing was just another one of Widey's bogus claims anyhow..

It was a neat stunt, no doubt, but its a fact that a number of recip's contemporary with the F8F
could've done beat it, if their operators had been so inclined..( or even knew about it)

You could try it in a WEP-maxed & light-load Bf 109K or Spit 14 here in A-H, too..