Author Topic: Does the F8F have a place here? (Read 2571 times)

RRAM · « **Reply #45 on:** June 23, 2002, 07:59:45 AM »

I don't know to which extent did the F8F draw ideas from the Fw190, but let me tell you one thing.

In Mid-1942 the Fw190 was, without challenge, the best fighter in the world.

If you get a hand on a captured plane wich is causing havoc between your planes and your allies' planes, then you'd be VERY stupid not to draw and copy its best features into your own designs.

Its a fact that the Bearcat designers had taken a good look at the captured 190s. Same did the russians, british and even japanese.

Someone said there the 190 was not ground breaking in anything. Well, you must take a second look to that affirmation, the Fw190 WAS ground breaking it its engine installation (it was deemed highly difficult to mount such a big radial engine into a such a small and narrow airframe as the 190's, yet Tank designed a magnific,compact, installation), the engine itself (Kommandogërat anyone?), the electrical systems (first all-electrical fighter), and its rollrate (best rolling fighter in the war).

I will tell you just one thing...the RAF copied the engine installation of the Fw190 in the Sea Fury, the Soviets did the same with the La5/F/FN/La7 family (which emerged after the study of a captured 190 by the russians), even the japanese copied the 190's installation when putting the new radial engine into the Ki61 airframe to convert it into what was called Ki100.

I don't know other things, but the bearcat also copied that installation. I don't know where is the problem in admitting it, damnit...the 190 was a damned fine plane with many superb features. One would have to be VERY stupid not to copy (when possible) the good features used by the enemy in their own planes!.

Staga · « **Reply #46 on:** June 23, 2002, 08:01:06 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by whgates3
if seeing combat qualifies a plane for AH, then i think the F7F qualifies. F7F-3Ps flew a few operations for the US Marine Corps towards the end of WWII. Since the F7F's was designed as a twin engine carrier bomber, i dont think the rule about shooting at someone should apply (the Arado Shnellbomber certainly never shot at anything)

Maybe not bomber version but there were also few night-fighters with MG151/20 cannons in the bellypack.
btw how do you know schnellbombers never shot at anything??

whgates3 · « **Reply #47 on:** June 23, 2002, 08:42:04 AM »

...i thought it was armed only w/ bombs

RRAM · « **Reply #48 on:** June 23, 2002, 08:57:51 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by whgates3
...i thought it was armed only w/ bombs

.....and backwards firing MG151/20s....

Staga · « **Reply #49 on:** June 23, 2002, 09:08:53 AM »

...but you knew that already didn't you ?

Wilbus · « **Reply #50 on:** June 23, 2002, 09:45:21 AM »

Red Tail 444 · « **Reply #51 on:** June 28, 2002, 10:00:11 AM »

Well if we're making irrational requests, why not add the F2G Super Corsair while we're at it

gofaster · « **Reply #52 on:** June 28, 2002, 10:04:48 AM »

I would say that the F8F does not belong in the Aces High world, since it did not see combat. It would make an interesting third-party add-on for "Combat Flight Simulator 2" though.

I would prefer to see some of the Japanese aircraft that did engage in combat, even though they were either limited in production numbers or limited in flight time. The Hayate would be a welcome addition to the Japanese plane set.

K West · « **Reply #53 on:** June 28, 2002, 10:26:36 AM »

"I don't know where is the problem in admitting it..."

Probably because it's basically not true for the F8F. And even if it was it would be very hard for many to admit it much in the same way you cannot admit at all that Tank stole the 190 design from the 1930's Hughes racer.

Westy

RRAM · « **Reply #54 on:** June 28, 2002, 10:31:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by K West

Probably because it's basically not true for the F8F.

It is,at least in what respects to the engine mounting- the rest, I don't really know. and I don't really mind, either

Quote

And even if it was it would be very hard for many to admit it much in the same way you cannot admit at all that Tank stole the 190 design from the 1930's Hughes racer.

Westy

he did?. I have no idea if he did, but if that was the case, kudos to Kurt Tank for grabbing a good plane's idea and improving it to the point of designing one of the best engineered planes in WWII, and one of the all-times classic of World aviation

.

You said I cannot admit it?. HEck, its quite easy!

. If Tank used the Hughes racer as basis for the 190, Kudos for him for choosing a good design where to base his work on, and even bigger kudos for him for improving the design so much as he did!

K West · « **Reply #55 on:** June 28, 2002, 10:44:59 AM »

lol.

If you know nothing about the Hughes racer being the foundation for the 190 then how would you know if Tank had improved upon the H1 at all? You're so transparant and fanatical it's beyond ludicrous.

Westy

RRAM · « **Reply #56 on:** June 28, 2002, 10:50:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by K West
lol.

If you know nothing about the Hughes racer then how would you know if Tank had improved upon it at all? You're so transparant and fanatical it's beyond ludicrous.

Westy

Oh, Westy. I know about hughes racer. I simply don't know if tank based his design on it, or not

.

I'd rather say not because what really made the Fw190 something possible was the engine mount designed by Tank that allowed something which was deemed almost impossible until then: the mating of a relatively huge engine (the BMW139 at first, the BMW801 later) into a rather small airframe as the 190's.

But said that, maybe Tank drew another concepts from the racer and included them into the 190.See, I simply don't know, but if it was true I'd dont mind anyway. Is something normal to base the design work done in a plane, in a previous one.

In any case, I'd say that,being the best figher in the world from late-1941 to mid-1943, the Fw190 was kind of an...err..."improvement" over any previous plane ever flown

I think than the transparent and fanatical one here is not exactly me, westy

K West · « **Reply #57 on:** June 28, 2002, 11:12:19 AM »

Well I'm not transparant and fanatical about any country's aircraft Ram. You are and it has been quite apparant for at least two years. You hold the 190 and Kurt Tank with shrine-like, fanatical adoration. I don't for any aircraft built by any nation.

As for "I simply don't know if tank based his design on it, or not " well at least you seem to be honest about that. But it's funny in that it's quite the opposite as to your presumption that the F8F was heavily influenced by the FW-190 design. For with only far reaching personal conjecture and presumption you link the success of the F8F design directly to copying the FW-190.

And THAT is my point. You cannot accept anything that would not make your belove 190 and it's main desighner Kurt Tank as being anything but the pinacle of WWII aviation. If something was, you always find some way (hence the running BBS joke about Kurt Tank being the founder and designer for literally everything) to link a Focke Wulf product or design team into the scheme of things.

Westy

(IMO the F8F did not use the 190 as it's design basis. At all)

RRAM · « **Reply #58 on:** June 28, 2002, 11:19:13 AM »

I will answer just this from the rest of the (sorry, but I see it this way) trash you've written in your last post.

Quote

Originally posted by K West
As for "I simply don't know if tank based his design on it, or not " well at least you seem to be honest about that. But it's funny in that it's quite the opposite as to your presumption that the F8F was heavily influenced by the FW-190 design.

F8F copied the engine installation from the Fw190. Same did the Russians with their radial Lavochkin series. Same did the British with their radial tempests and Sea Fury. SAme did the Japanese with their Ki100.

That is not an opinion. That is a fact.

P.S. Even while the Fw190 has always been my favorite aircraft, and I've always liked anything related with the Luftwaffe, I've never hidden that the Chance-Vought F4U Corsair is my second favorite plane ever. You might check twice about what you think about my aeronautical preferences

. They're not just german.

P.S.2: I think that one of the biggest blunders made by the german aeronautic design firms during WWII was not copying the P51 radiator design and introducing it into the 109 and Radial 190 series. I talked about this with funkedup the other day.
As you see I think is FOOLISH not to copy good designed features from enemy planes in your own. So in the end ,I'm saying that those who copied the Fw190's engine mounting did the smart thing.

Sikboy · « **Reply #59 on:** June 28, 2002, 11:30:14 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by RRAM

That is not an opinion. That is a fact.

I KNOW I shouldn't ask this question. I know this. But I never learn my lesson...

What is it about the engine installation that was copied? In general terms, what were the Patentable claims and disclosures? Please don't attack that phrase, I work in Intelectual Property, and I'm not sure how else to express what I'm after... What made the Installation of the FW190 unique to radial engines before it?

-Sikboy