Does the F8F have a place here?

[K West]

Wih I had better pix (scaled 3 view would bne nicer). But to help here is a comparative shot.


and here are the actual measurements, with the f4f, f6f and spit tossed in for comparison. To say the F8F is a copy of the 190A model size for size is ludicrous also.

F6F  Span: 42'10"  length: 33'7"  height: 13'10"  Wing area: 334 sq. ft.
Spit Span: 36'10"  length: 31'11" height: 12'08"  Wing Area: 242 sq. ft.
F4F  Span: 38'0"   length: 28'9"  Height: 11'10"  Wing area: 260 sq. ft
F8F  Span: 35'10"  length: 28'3"  height: 13'10"  Wing area: 244 sq. ft.
190  Span: 34'05"  length: 28'11" height: 13'     Wing area: 197 sq. ft.


F6F  Empty: 9,238lb gross: 15,413lb
Spit Empty: 5.065lb gross:  9,500lb
F4F  Empty: 5,758lb gross:  7,975lb
F8F  Empty: 7,070lb gross: 12,947lb
190  Empty: 6,750lb gross: 10,725lb

[eddiek]

I read the story about Bob Hall checking out the FW-190 and making that remark.
Sure, "put an R-2800 on this and we'll have a world beater" could, if you really want it to, mean that the F8F is based on a 190.  Most Focke-Wulfe fans are gonna read it that way, because they WANT to believe the 190 was so special everyone wanted to copy it.
Others, myself included, who like the 190's but are not 'fans' of them, read it this way:  Bob Hall saw the 190, considered the overall design of the plane and wondered out loud just what it would be like with an American radial on it.
The Grumman company designed naval aircraft, they had to be rugged as hell to withstand the punishment of carrier landings and other things that land based aircraft didn't have to endure.  Based on that alone, I'd say that barring the resemblance of one radial engined aircraft to another, and having two wings, IMO the Bearcat and 190 don't look a thing alike.  Wing shape......different.  Vertical stabilizer.........different.  The list goes on and on.
The F8F is in my opinion, just the next step Grumman took in their quest to make better aircraft; it is more streamlined, lighter, faster, and more agile than the F6F.
And just for you 190 lovers out there, NO, I am not a 190 hater.  The Dora is one of my favorite rides when I do get in LW iron, rivaled only by the 109G10.

[minus]

 got only 2 remarks ,

i thing all who use  this thingy like << kurt tank invented tra la la and i dont know what >> must be fanatic republican

another  thingy ,  did you ever seen man dresed like woman and wice wersa ?????  is it sure what you se  is it right ?


 so even if bearcat dont look like 190    significate nothing

[Steven]

FW has a similar wing span length as the Brewster Buffalo.  Kurt Stank copied the Buffalo.  They even have the same engine mounting...up front!


Quite often, technological advances march in parallel.  People from different countries can make the same natural leaps.  My guess would be that the Bearcat is more heavily influenced by the Japanese aircraft than anything else and is most heavily influenced by USA R&D.  

"If we put an R2800 in this thing (FW190) we'd have a world beater."
Put a J79 jet engine in it and it would be a world beater too!  Oh no, the F104 Starfighter and F-4 Phantom II are FW copies.  

[john9001]

i read in a magizine that kurt tank was really a frenchman, it must be true , i read it in a magizine

[bigUC]

Whops, of course the f8f have a place here until we can get the real FW190-a3.  Then remove the ugly copy :-)

[GRUNHERZ]

Its closer in size and normal weight to FW190 than every other in that chart ypu posted. Much cloer in fact than either F4F and F6F who were both larger, the F6F much more so.

[K West]

It's actually closer in most dimensions to the Spitfire  

Westy

[HoHun]

Hi everyone,

some thoughts on the subject:

In 1943, in was obvious for everyone that the Focke-Wulf was a world-beater. It didn't need an R-2800 for it.

Considering the evident success of the Fw 190, any aviation engineer would be influenced by it. If not, he's an engineer unaware of the current position of the cutting edge.

The F8F clearly was not a Fw 190 copy. The question only can be whether Grummen employed any of the design features introduced by the Fw 190.

Even in the case they didn't, remember that influence doesn't necessarily lead to imitation.  Careful examination of a successful design can provide an insight into the priorities of the original designers. Using the same set of priorities when starting with a clean sheet of paper could lead to a fighter with no resemblance to the original, but though invsibible the influence would still be a fact.

A more modern example: The MiG-29 was heavily influenced by the F-15, but it certainly was no copy. It was the Soviet way of designing a twin-engined air superiority fighter, based on an entirely different technological and industrial base. Though the MiG-29 was a completely original design, it probably would have looked very different if there hadn't been the F-15.

In the same way, even if the F8F did not copy any single feature of the Fw 190, Grumman might have arrived at a very different design as successor for the F6F if the Fw 190 hadn't existed.

That's just to point out that influence can be very strong without being evident in the design. If you're looking for something more substantial, you should check Bearcat for the design features I listed above. Superficial similarities or differences aren't that important - the engineering know-how is hidden beneath the aircraft skin.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Steven]

In the same way, even if the F8F did not copy any single feature of the Fw 190, Grumman might have arrived at a very different design as successor for the F6F if the Fw 190 hadn't existed.

This is starting to get funny... I think.   It was designed to be an interceptor and range wasn't job #1 and therefore small airframe + big engine was the order of the day.  Grumman probably studied every design, test study and combat aircraft out there and therefore, the FW190 is owed no more credit than any other aircraft out there judging by the comment quoted above.  In fact, technically, the F4U is supposed to be the mating of a big enging and small airframe, so much so that the wings had to be bent.  Even if FW190 had never existed, the Bearcat would've appeared as it does due to the design being for an exceptionally climbing interceptor which means:
Big Engine + Small Airframe
(Lotsa Power to Weight)
It's a very elementary idea.

[GRUNHERZ]

F2G Corsair was the US Navy's idea of a fast climbing interceptor. It's not small and it's not light.

Then F6F Hellcat is small to you as well Steven? Its same size as F4U. Prop clearence was not the reason the wing was bent. The most common explanation was to shorten the gear as much as possible for carrier landing pressures. F6F did it with no bent wing, even with its mid wing configuration.

Again I state there was no US Navy order for a light small fighter, it was a Grumman idea based on examination and testing of FW190 by Grumman chief designer and test pilot.

[HoHun]

Hi Steven,

>Even if FW190 had never existed, the Bearcat would've appeared as it does due to the design being for an exceptionally climbing interceptor

The irony is that your claim is as impossible to prove as the opposite :-)

I'd say it's reasonable to expect that a recognized "world beater" would have a greater influence on a new design than a loser like, say, the P-40.

However, there are still a couple of verifyable design features to be checked out by someone who has good documentation on the F8F. This might be a better way of tracing possible Bearcat-Focke-Wulf relations than the question of design philosophy which is hard to agree on.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[K West]

I agree 100% with you HoHun that all aircraft designers learned from the works of others.  I however strongly disagree with the statement of Grunherz that the F8F was designed and built as the direct result of Grummans engineers (particulalry Bob Hall) having flown an FW-190.

 Grunherz, you've yet to show any evidence what so ever to support your theory (cause it certainly isn't fact).  Your conjecture and proposition based on comments after test flights on a captured model is far reaching and quite unsubstantive to say the least. I guess if I squint my eyes closed enough and wish it to be then I might see the resemblance. And maybe if someone could turn out the lights to get the right effect I could be convinced.

 IF an aircraft manufacturer had flown a DO-335 and a year later came out with a similar heavy fighter utilising a pusher/puller combo.. you'd be right.

 IF an aircraft manufactuer rep had flown a 190-D9 and the next model they made used an inverted inline engine with a cowl mounted radiator...you'd be right.

 As to why Grumman needed to make the lighter F8F? Well look at the requirements; "..The design goals included unparalleled agility, unprecedented acceleration, high rate of climb, excellent low level performance and the ability to operate off of every carrier from the upcoming Midway class down to the smallest escort carrier."  Doesn't sound like an FW to me at all.  They needed a fast climbing fighter with performance beyond just about everything the Japanese had or could possibly be developing.
 I think you're putting too much into Bob Hall having flown the FW and then the F8F design. I remind you he was also the lead engineer at  Gibson Brothers and was an old hand at slapping huge radials on tiny airframes.






I imagine next someone will propose that the since F/A-18 is based on one of the design proposals seen on the Luft'46 website


 

 Westy


(Funkedup, the engine mounting and exhaust routing/venting is essentially the same as on the F6F. It was simply the same engine used and the proven design worked. All they did was move the cooler, and the associated plumbing, from under the engine to the wing roots.  Did Grumman redesign thier F6F after looking at the 190 too?)

[gripen]

I wonder what kind of impression would a looker get from that picture if the F8F is in the backround and the F6F in the foreground

gripen

[F4UDOA]

Grunherz,

The F8F was not a replacement for the F6F or F4U. It was a replacement for the FM-2 which was in service on carriers as a "light" interceptor right up until wars end.