Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: MiloMorai on December 03, 2005, 04:13:30 PM
-
It is said that Bob Hall tested a Fw190A in GB in early 1943 and was so impressed by it that he convinced Roy Grumman to build a small fighter for the F6F replacement fighter competition. Both Boeing and Curtiss were designing huge a/c for the competition.
Fact or truth?
-
Fact....it's been debated and discussed before, probably about three years ago, but yes, it is true in principle.
But......IMHO, to say that the F8F was a direct offshoot, or a Grumman version of the 190 would not be completely true. He got the idea for the F8F, he didn't copy the 190. It gave him an idea, an inspiration.
Get ready for the flame war.........:aok
-
LOL, if you think the 190 and the F8F have ANY comparisons besides being Single engine radials you need to just walk away.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
LOL, if you think the 190 and the F8F have ANY comparisons besides being Single engine radials you need to just walk away.
thats dumb
both are convetional gear monoplanes
-
Well the F8F has thinner front bars than 190! F8F has better vision overall :)
-
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=124870
See Widewing's posts.
-
F8F vs FW-190
(http://www.mustangsmustangs.net/p-51/p51pics/warbirds/f8f/f8f-4.jpg)
(http://hsfeatures.com/features04/images/Fw190A5_ICR9.jpg)
(http://www.wingsovergillespie.org/aircraft/F8F.jpg)
(http://www.bibl.u-szeged.hu/bibl/mil/ww2/kepek/planes/pics/fw190_5.jpg)
(http://www.jagdgeschwader4.de/Flugzeuge/FW190/grosse%20Bilder/FW190A-8.jpg)
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/f8f-line.gif)
-
You hold a Ki84 template up to a Fw190 and they look alike as well. You hold a Lavochkin template up and they look the same as well. Not to mention that GRUMMAN had been KNOWN for making radial engined fighters for quite some time by the time the F8F was even envisioned. In fact I think the F8F is a continuation of the F6F blended with some of the shapes of the sleeker F4u.
-
I always heard it was built to a spec to directly take on the Kamakaze threat to the fleet at that time and what was expected to come from a future invasion of Japan.
It was built light, small airframe, light armament (4 instead of 6 .50 cals as was standard on most Navy & USAAF fighters) & with major HP (same engine as the Hellcat) to make it as quick as possible so that it could intercept incoming Kamakaze a/c before they could make it to the fleet.
:aok
-
Its intended deployment was as an anti-kamikaze point defence fighter, stressing climb rate, speed, and firepower. It was to replace the FM-2 Wildcats that were performing a lot of BARCAP roles off of the CVEs. I dont beleive it was ever intended to replace the F6F and F4U, which were to bear the brunt of the USN/USMCs strike and close support missions on the Home Islands, from the Fast Carriers.
As to the nexus of the design of the F8F, I don't have that handy. Might break out a few books later. Im not sure that it was designed "on the drawing board" as an anti-kamikaze a/c, since the 1st use of the Kamikazes in large # was 10/44.
-
Always thought that this little teddie was a direct descendant of the F6F.
Well, me again.....
-
Understanding the F8F requires understanding the internal decisions made at Grumman first.
At the time the F8F concept was being formed (long before there was a Kamikazi threat), Roy Grumman, Bud Gillies and Bob Hall made a visit to Britain to discuss fighter designs and get input from the Royal Navy. There Hall and Gillies had test flown a captured Fw 190. Both were very taken with the power management system and the stunning roll rate of the aircraft. Both also liked the excellent system integration of the 190. They didn't like the mixed armament and found the cowl guns an unneeded complication. They were not thrilled with vision over the engine. Neither man cared for the 190s poor stall characteristics, or its tendency to snap stall out of hard turns. Yet both men agreed that the 190 was a remarkably good fighter although clearly unsuited for carrier operation. Both Hall and Gillies felt that the Navy needed a fast climbing, agile fighter that would have superior turn rate to the 190, with better stall behavior (required for safe operation around the ship). Everyone was impressed with the 190's strength and emphasis on designing for easy mass production. Vision out of the semi-bubble canopy glass was also noted as being outstanding.
Upon returning to the Grumman facility, the influence of flying the Focke Wulf deliberately crept into the design process. The result was a fighter small, relatively light and extremely powerful for its size. Improved power controls reduced pilot workload. Initially, Hall found that the prototype was longitudinally unstable and ordered that the stabilizer span be increased by two feet. This improved stability to an acceptable level, although Hall didn't want another Hellcat, he wanted the F8F to be slightly unstable as he thought that this enhanced its agility. Eventually, Grumman adopted a dorsal fillet as well after seeing how much the P-51D improved by its addition (Hall flew the P-51D at the 1944 fighter conference).
Meanwhile, Grumman was proceeding with two examples of the XF6F-6. This was an improved Hellcat, powered by the same R-2800-18W engine and propeller combination flying in the XF4U-4. Performance was very good, out-climbing the XF4U-4 and giving up only about 10 mph in maximum speed. Since the F6F production could be quickly adapted to the revised aircraft, Manufacturing wanted the F6F-6 to go into production immediately. Hall (Director of the Experimental Department) wanted his F8F to get the nod. Arguments were made to Roy Grumman. Grumman, who saw great merit in both aircraft formally asked the Navy to make a decision. Not surprising, there were advocates of both types within the Naval Aviation hiarchy. However, it was determined that the F6F-5 was adequate for the short term as a new production line was set-up for the F8F and the Bearcat was selected.
Had the F6F-6 been selected, Grumman would have been delivering these in large numbers by November of 1944, meaning it would have been in combat no later than January of 1945, months before the F4U-4. Originally, the Navy planned to phase in the F6F-6 as they did the F6F-5, sending them to combat units as replacement aircraft as well as refitting units coming back from deployments. We all know that the F8F didn't see combat, although it was deployed on carriers enroute to Japan at the surrender.
If I had to make the choice between the F6F-6 and the F8F-1, I would have picked the improved Hellcat as this would have placed better aircraft in the fleet sooner. However, I would also have gotten F8F production underway at Eastern Aircraft ASAP, stopping FM-2 production immediately. Of course, the politics of such a decision would not have sat well with Grumman. Eastern did receive a contract for the FM3-1 (F8F-1) in February of 1945, but hadn't yet begun assembly when the war ended (largely because the obsolete FM-2 was consuming much of Eastern's resources). Another reason for selecting the F6F-6 was that the F4U-4 production was slow. Grumman was delivering Hellcats at nearly twice the rate F4Us were being delivered, and the F4U was being manufactured by Vought and Goodyear (and Brewster, until their pathetic delivery and quality control resulted in a cancelled contract). Getting better aircraft to the fleet as fast as possible would weigh heavy in my mind.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Yes but that's like saying "They looked at the capabilities of the clipped-wing spitXVI, and liked the roll rate and the climbing capabilites".
It doesn't mean they were copying the Fw190, they just wanted something that could do X, Y, and Z, and they made a plane based on their knowledge that would perform X, Y, and Z very well.
If you look at a lot of late war US designs, they share a lot of similar features, including general wing shape, wing layout, cockpit position and design, and engine placement. It's misleading to say the Fw190 "inspired it" -- that implies teh copy of design and/or artistic style. Rather they just looked at the FW190s speed, its roll rate and capabilities. They might have well just looked at the Spitfire, or the Mustang. It's not as if the F8F was ever designed to compete with the Fw190.
-
Hi Krusty,
>It's misleading to say the Fw190 "inspired it" -- that implies teh copy of design and/or artistic style.
The F8F was a copy of the Fw 190 adapted to a US-built engine, US armament and the requirement for carrier capability.
Just look at the placement of the landing gear in front of the fore spar which leaves the main part of the wing a full-monocoque torsion box, a unique feature of the Fw 190 and the "secret" of its strong wing construction.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Krusty,
>It's misleading to say the Fw190 "inspired it" -- that implies teh copy of design and/or artistic style.
The F8F was a copy of the Fw 190 adapted to a US-built engine, US armament and the requirement for carrier capability.
Just look at the placement of the landing gear in front of the fore spar which leaves the main part of the wing a full-monocoque torsion box, a unique feature of the Fw 190 and the "secret" of its strong wing construction.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
I disagree. Look at the placement of the landing gear, yes! The P51 and the P47 both had it too, omigaw, we were stealing LW plans from before we knew there was a Fw190!!!
:P
Also look at the other planes of the time. The other US designs are more likely to have influenced the F8F, because they were already around.
Claiming that the F8F is a copy of the Fw190 is silly.
-
Look at the position of the Ki-84's landing gear. I doubt they could be any further forward and would be ver surprised if the main spar is in front of them. I don't know about the construction of the wing other than that though.
Also keep in mind the excelent systems integration of the BMW powered Fw190s. I would not hesitate to say that the Fw190s with BMW engines had the best cockpits of any significant WWII fighter, and by a fairly good margin. I would say that the British, Russians, Italians and Japanese seem almost to not have given any thought at all to lightening the pilot's work load and some American companies failed pretty badly too.
-
Performance was very good, out-climbing the XF4U-4 and giving up only about 10 mph in maximum speed.
Err,
Is this a troll?
-
Hi Krusty,
>The P51 and the P47 both had it too, omigaw, we were stealing LW plans from before we knew there was a Fw190!!!
Learn to be more specific. The P-47 has its landing gear aft of the front spar and accordingly features a semi-monocoque wing root structure.
>Claiming that the F8F is a copy of the Fw190 is silly.
If you intend to continue the discussion at that level of sophistication, just save me some time and tell me now so that I can put you on my ignore list right away.
Thanks in advance,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Krusty: you'll earn a happy place beside my name on HoHun's priviliged contributer's list in a whiff if you carry on like this.
Come to think of it, the item that got me there was a debate where I turned out to have a better point than him, hehe. I wish he'd put my name up in big letters for reminders. :D
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Err,
Is this a troll?
Hardly.
Pat Gallo performed the initial flight tests and reported 425 mph and a climb to 15,000 feet in 3.7 minutes. He did not use the water injection system on the early test flights.
Corwin Meyer, who flew one of the the XF6F-6s several times reported that with water injection, climb from sea level to 15,000 feet was obtained 3.4 minutes. Maximum speed (with water injection), was 433 mph. In Meyer's own words, "they had the same engine and propeller, and that made them about equal in performance." Meyer flew the F4U-4 several times and was aware of what it was capable of.
My regards,
WIdewing
-
Claiming that the F8F is a copy of the Fw190 is silly.
Give the NASM Garber Facility a call. Talk to them about the design features of the F8F and ask them their experience in the similarities to the FW-190.
http://www.nasm.si.edu/museum/garber/
While not an exact carbon copy, the design is certainly based on Grumman's experience with the Focke Wulf and is summed up nicely by Widewing.
Neither the P51 or the P47 had the wingspar construction Hohun is refering too. They have a main wingspar which is actually multiple pieces bolted together.
The FW-190's is one solid piece running throughout most of the wing. It is not bolted together or fitted from the fuselage. The wings run under the fuselage and the main spar is one continous piece.
The upside to this construction is tremendous strength. The downside is if the mainspar takes damage, it is much harder to repair. Usually the wing was just replaced and the repair performed at depot or higher. Although I am certain a Geschwader level maintenance shop could do it given the time. I mean we did it in our shop.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
"Hellcat" dy David Handerton, confirms what I thought I remembered correctly in my small head, it was built around a requirement for a minimum takeoff, maximum climb interceptor, and was to be based aboard the CVEs. Range was a secondary consideration. It doesnt have much else on it, since its a book on the F6F mainly.
Out of curiosity, for those that have more info on it, did the 1945 version have any air-ground ordnance? I see no rocket rails or even wing pylons for it in the photos I can find. Only a center rack for a drop tank.
As for Korea, I guess because Grumman went to jets, it was F9F Panther deployed, and the Grumman prop fighters were retired from the USN, thus no Hellcats or F8Fs in Korea.
-
Their engineers flew one in England & "that" is what inspired the cat. they decided to do a one up on it. Lighter better version. It ended up being heavier & the tail does look like a taller Corsair tail & the downslope of the nose looke like Hellcat, so yes inspired by 190, not direct copy, but that was not the stated goal, the stated goal was a one up-improvement on it.
-
The only thing I will say about the debate about what inspired it is that all combat a/c designers who are worth anything will take a hard look at allied, enemy and competitors a/c, and innovations, and incorporate them into a new design. Of course, each country has differing requirements, economies, and time frames, so its always hard to compare one to another that way. However, many a/c over history have been inspired by anothers designs. Thats been going on since the Wright Flyer, and continues to this day.
"The Ju-87 was inspired by a visit to the US by Ernst Udet, then a ranking officer in the new Luftwaffe. There he saw demonstrations of a Curtiss Hawk biplane being used as a dive bomber and the German penchant for the type was born."
Goes both ways.
Where did Curtiss get the idea? who knows, maybe a seagull took a dump on him one day... :)
-
Originally posted by Squire
Where did Curtiss get the idea? who knows, maybe a seagull took a dump on him one day... :)
He probably took at look at some British bombing techniques used late in WW1 - they seem to have been the first to use dive-bombing. Pity they almost forgot about it thereafter - can't have the RAF subordinated to the Army's needs, can we? :(
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Originally posted by Tony Williams
He probably took at look at some British bombing techniques used late in WW1 - they seem to have been the first to use dive-bombing. Pity they almost forgot about it thereafter - can't have the RAF subordinated to the Army's needs, can we? :(
That sounds very much like the schism between the US Army and US Air Force over the A-10. The Air Force wants fast, high, sexy high tech aircraft and the Army wants to be supported. I have a friend who was a tank commander in the US Army in the late '80s/early '90s and he has scathing things to say about the Air Force persistantly trying to get rid of the A-10, but not allowing the Army to have them because fixed wing aircraft are the domain of the Air Force.
Nothing ever changes.
-
Grumman, however, favored a lighter and more manoeuvrable design more like the German Focke Wulf Fw 190, of which a captured example was flown by Grumman test pilot Bob Hall in England. The resulting Grumman design, the XF8F-1, weighed only 7,017 pounds empty and was sometimes described as the smallest airframe built around the most powerful, fully-developed engine, a real "hot rod."
-
I watched a show last night that commented on why the F-117 is given the "F" designation in the USAF. Apparently its so pilots will like flying it. I found that disturbing. Its a bomber, pure and simple, there is no shame in that is there?
In any case I heard that the A-10 was actually quite popular to fly in the USAF, despite being the "A" 10. I also think it has been demonstrated to be amongst the USAFs best combat types, but alas, it can't go Mach 3 and doesnt cost 500 million per copy, so it must be "obsolete".
...untill there is another war, perhaps with China or N.Korea, and they need an a/c that can be sent into harms way to take out tanks, and wont break the bank if they lose one.
-
"The Ju-87 was inspired by a visit to the US by Ernst Udet, then a ranking officer in the new Luftwaffe. There he saw demonstrations of a Curtiss Hawk biplane being used as a dive bomber and the German penchant for the type was born."
Udet actually bought a few Curtiss Hawks AFAIK.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Udet actually bought a few Curtiss Hawks AFAIK.
All the best,
Crumpp
Germany got 2 Goshawks which were the USN model of the Hawk. They were Hawk IIs(F11C-2). The first one was coded D-3165 but was changed to D-IRIS. The other was D-IRIK.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
That sounds very much like the schism between the US Army and US Air Force over the A-10. The Air Force wants fast, high, sexy high tech aircraft and the Army wants to be supported. I have a friend who was a tank commander in the US Army in the late '80s/early '90s and he has scathing things to say about the Air Force persistantly trying to get rid of the A-10, but not allowing the Army to have them because fixed wing aircraft are the domain of the Air Force.
Nothing ever changes.
Marines are much smarter, they make sure they dont have to depend on the Air Force and bring their own air support. :)
-
Originally posted by Grits
Marines are much smarter, they make sure they dont have to depend on the Air Force and bring their own air support. :)
One Marin was telling me a joke that went something like this:
If you need air support, call on a Marine to give it to you. If there are no Marines available, call the Navy. If the Marines and Navy are not available, call an Allied Air Force. If none of those are available, figure out how to do it without air support.
-
Im sure that without the legal protections that are enshrined enough in US Law regarding the USMC, that the USN would have gotten rid of the Marine Air Wings long ago, and folded that up into their own service.
Crummp, ya thats right I recall they sent a few over.
-
Crummp, ya thats right I recall they sent a few over.
Udet actually kept one as a personal plane. He love it.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Squire
Crummp, ya thats right I recall they sent a few over.
Only 2
It was in a Hawk II that American Len Povey, the commander of the Cuban AF, flew the first Cuban Eight at the Miami air races in 1936.
-
Look, Milo wants attention.
Two is a few in my book.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
The N1K2 Shinden, which is also a similar looking design I think would have been close in performance to the F8F had the type not had to rely on 1945 Japanese fuel. It certainly would have been a 400mph class fighter, and even as it was, had a good reputation. It was undoubtably the IJNs best WW2 fighter (Ki-84 being IJAAF).
-
Originally posted by Karnak
One Marin was telling me a joke that went something like this:
If you need air support, call on a Marine to give it to you. If there are no Marines available, call the Navy. If the Marines and Navy are not available, call an Allied Air Force. If none of those are available, figure out how to do it without air support.
LMAO...yeah, I've heard that one. My dad was a Marine A-4 pilot...you dont want to get him started on the Air Force. :)
-
Originally posted by Squire
The N1K2 Shinden, which is also a similar looking design I think would have been close in performance to the F8F had the type not had to rely on 1945 Japanese fuel. It certainly would have been a 400mph class fighter, and even as it was, had a good reputation. It was undoubtably the IJNs best WW2 fighter (Ki-84 being IJAAF).
Hrm... You see, I've heard the exact OPOSITE. The N1K was horribly unreliable with both engine and landing gear. It also had a cowling designed to be aerodynamic so the prop was connected to the engine via a shaft, which further increased engine problems.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Look, Milo wants attention.
Two is a few in my book.
All the best,
Crumpp
LOL your book. :eek: More myths will be created. :( You had better hire a ghost writer for you still are having trouble with English I see Crumpp. A couple is two. A few is a small number more than two.
-
Didn't the A6M also have a whole spar wing running through the underside of the fuselage? Weight saving yet strong.?
-
LOL your book. More myths will be created. You had better hire a ghost writer for you still are having trouble with English I see Crumpp. A couple is two. A few is a small number more than two.
Why don't you just put me on your ignore list Milo?
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
LOL your book. :eek: More myths will be created. :( You had better hire a ghost writer for you still are having trouble with English I see Crumpp. A couple is two. A few is a small number more than two.
pot meet kettle. in your sig line that should be too as opposed to, to. idiot.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Why don't you just put me on your ignore list Milo?
Do the same with me so we don't have to read your sarcastic remarks.
-
Widewing,
Meyer has always maintained the similarity of performance of the F6F and F4U. However the NAVAIR and TAIC don't really show what he describes. In fact all of the Grumman factory climb results are much higher than the tested results which makes me suspicious of Meyers claim about the speed and climb of the XF6F-6.
Do you know of any published results for the bird that do not come from Grumman? I can't find anything that shows faster than 425MPH and most sources say 417MPH.
-
8 mph is not much of a difference - just the little odds like the paint and such will create that much of a measured difference.
-
The N1K1 did have its share of gear and engine problems, the N1K2 of 1945 got rid of most of the landing gear woes, but the tempermental engine still gave it troubles until war's end. I have also read that its engine was not easy to service.
All that being said, when it was up and running properly, the N1K2 was a formidable fighter, and certainly more so than an A6M5.
It really ran out of time before reaching its full potential, like many of its cousins. Its fair to point out its shortcomings, but one has to remember the context as well.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Widewing,
Meyer has always maintained the similarity of performance of the F6F and F4U. However the NAVAIR and TAIC don't really show what he describes. In fact all of the Grumman factory climb results are much higher than the tested results which makes me suspicious of Meyers claim about the speed and climb of the XF6F-6.
Do you know of any published results for the bird that do not come from Grumman? I can't find anything that shows faster than 425MPH and most sources say 417MPH.
There's no doubt that Grumman's performance numbers were always better than Navy data. There was several reasons for this.
The Navy always tested at max gross weight, Grumman usually tested with one hour of fuel, plus reserve. Grumman generally did not add ballast for uninstalled ammunition (although Republic did). Grumman primped and preened the aircraft before testing, whereas the Navy flew them as is/was.
My understanding from what Meyer wrote was that 425 mph was WEP without water injection. F6F's had a seperate switch to turn on the water pump, it was not part of the throttle quadrant rigging. I've seen 417 mph in several sources myself. It is possible that this is max speed at MIL power. It's also a possibility that the 417 mph is uncorrected for pitot error. Once Grumman established that pitot error was the biggest factor in the apparent speed differential between the F4U-1A and the F6F-5, they developed a correction scale to determine actual IAS.
I have not seen any test data beyond that generated by Grumman. I do believe that two Navy test pilots did fly the XF6F-6 planes, but did so at Bethpage (factory).
My regards,
Widewing
-
This has come up before, but what are the Navys #s on the F6F-5?
Is this "F6F-5 too slow" stuff based around either Grummans #s or the F6F-6?
-
Hi, first time poster, long time lurker. Saw this conversation and it interested me.
About the XF6F-6: the 425mph speed was achieved at 2,450 hp. 2,450 hp is a wet WEP rating for the R-2800-18W engine. Any speed achieved in excess of that figure would have been at wet WEP. Otherwise, it was achieved at a weight far below anything, or a condition cleaner than anything (or both) that would be used in service.
The commonly published 417 mph speed for the XF6F-6 is unlikely to be a military power speed. More than likely it is a wet WEP combat speed – ie, with racks and zero-length launchers. The 425 speed is likely a wet WEP clean speed.
BuAer/NAVAER routinely published speeds for their planes in "Clean" and "Combat" configurations. "Clean" was sans bomb-racks or zero-length rocket launchers. "Combat" was with those accessories. For instance, the F4U-4 "Combat" speed at wet WEP was 393 knots (452 mph). "Clean" speed was 403 knots (463 mph). Both on 115/145 grade fuel. On 100/130 PN fuel, published speeds are around 446 mph combat, 452 clean (iirc).
With respect to the XF6F-6 outperforming the XF4U-4: I haven't seen any performance figures to suggest the XF4U-4 performed substantially worse than the production plane. Given the fact that the XF4U-4 had a better drag coefficient than the XF6F-6, had better power loading, similar wing loading, and the same engine, I find it incredibly difficult to believe that the XF6F-6 outperformed the XF4U-4. I also believe its inferior performance to the F4U-4 was one of the reasons the Navy chose the F4U-4, and one of the major reasons Grumman terminated development of the XF6F-6 even before testing was complete.
BuAer's published INITIAL climb rate for the F4U-4 in combat configuration at 60" hga MAP was 4,400 fpm. Yet there is a claim in this thread that the XF6F-6 climbed to 15,000 feet in 3.4 minutes. That’s an AVERAGE climb rate of over 4,400 fpm. In other words, somehow the XF6F-6, with worse drag coefficient, worse power loading, similar wing loading, and same engine not only out climbed the F4U-4, but did so by a substantial margin. I don’t dispute the information provided, but details of that test would be appreciated, along with the configuration of the test plane - because something doesn’t add up.
Published performance figures for the XF6F-6 and the F4U-4 at clean, loaded and maximum weights and power ratings speak for themselves. The F4U-4 was the superior plane – no question about it.
---
With respect to the claim that the F8F copied the Fw-190 landing gear/spar configuration: the F8F used the same construction method as the F6F. The construction was web and cap strip construction, with a fore and aft spar, the fore being larger and stronger. Both spars extended the entire length of the center wing section. As with the F6F, the gear was hinged ahead of the main spar, the difference being that the F8F gear retracted towards the center, while the F6F’s gear retracted backwards. To suggest the Bearcat copied this from the Fw-190 ignores the fact that such construction existed in the F6F.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
There's no doubt that Grumman's performance numbers were always better than Navy data. There was several reasons for this.
The Navy always tested at max gross weight...
Hmmmm, they certainly didn't publish their performance figures that way.
NAVAER "Standard Aircraft Characteristic" data sheets for Navy fighter aircraft listed perfomance in several different configurations such as
fighter-clean, fighter-combat, fighter-extra fuel tank, rocket, escort, etc. Testing only at max gross weight would have left a huge void of knowlwedge as to how an aircraft would perfom under other conditions.
-
Both spars extended the entire length of the center wing section.
The main wing spar on the FW-190 extends throughout 3/4's of the entire wing, not just the center section.
Here is a picture of Black 3's wing. The main spar runs from outboard the gun bays thru the center. It is one solid piece and not bolted together.
http://www.white1foundation.org/photos/Black3/21.jpg
The F6F main spar comes in 3 sections and is bolted together in the wing. With the exception of the portion that folds up to allow storage.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by HoHun
The F8F was a copy of the Fw 190 adapted to a US-built engine, US armament and the requirement for carrier capability.
This seems absurb, and baseless. There was nothing special about the construction or design of the F8F that can be traced directly to the Fw-190. Similarities are superficial.
The F8F was designed in accordance with Roy Grumman's desire to produce a small, lightweight, high performance fighter that could operate from small carriers - small carriers that were becoming ever-more common. R. Grumman expressed concern to his chief engineer, Bill Schwendler, in July 1943 that Grumman was over-relying on twin engined aircraft in the belief that's what BuAer wanted. R. Grumman wanted a small plane he could market to BuAer as a "converted carrier fighter." His specifications were for a plane that: 1) had the same dimensions as the Wildcat, 2) had a gross weight of 8,500 lbs, 3) has a 2 speed R-2800 engine, 4) 170 gallon internal fuel capacity, 5) bubble canopy, 6) wide track undercarriage providing adequate propeller clearance, 7) superior perfomance to the Hellcat, 8) power loading of 4 hp/lb and wing loading of 33 lbs/sq ft. It took examination of an Fw-190 to come up with that? Had the Fw-190 truly inspired the Bearcat, the Bearcat would have performed worse than it did.
Just look at the placement of the landing gear in front of the fore spar which leaves the main part of the wing a full-monocoque torsion box, a unique feature of the Fw 190 and the "secret" of its strong wing construction.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun) [/B]
See my last post. Nothing "unique" about that. Of course while the Bearcat and Hellcat had folding wings, the center sections were built of two spars extending the entire length of the center section. Thh gears on both the Hellcat and Bearcat hinged ahead of the main spar. R. Gumman and company didn't need to examine a Fw-190 to come up with something they already knew.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
The main wing spar on the FW-190 extends throughout 3/4's of the entire wing, not just the center section.
Crumpp
The Beatcat had folding wings, the Fw didn't. The Fw didn't have a "center section" in the manner the Bearcat did. It would have been impossible to have folding wings if the spars extended beyond the center section. :aok
-
The thing about the F6F-5 is the TAIC and NAVAIR results that always make me question how Grumman conducted their test.
For instance the F6F-5 climb is rated as higher than that of the F4U-1A/D in most sources including here in AH. However this is only if you use Grumman performance numbers. When you look at the TAIC test done in two individual test vrs the FW190 and A6M5 the F4U-1D outclimbs the F6F-3 and then the F6F-5 (by as much as 500FPM). This F6F acheived 409MPH at 22K so it was performimg very well. This results also supported by the NAVAIR test of both A/C which has a 1 minute climb adavantage for the F4U.
In anycase it would surprise me if the XF6F-6 could outclimb the F4U-4 considering the history of their predecessors.
-
The Beatcat had folding wings, the Fw didn't.
Your completely misunderstanding what I posted. I know the Bearcat has folding wings. However, it's main wingspar runs almost the same length as the Focke Wulfs:
http://www.shanaberger.com/images/F8F_3.htm
And folds completely differently from the F6F:
(http://img127.potato.com/loc224/th_2c8_aec00674.jpg) (http://img127.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc224&image=2c8_aec00674.jpg)
Notice the difference?
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Comparing climb rates is very difficult. What appears to be a simple comparison may be an exercise in "apples and oranges." I've seen varying climb rates for the F6F-3/5 and F4U-1/A/D. It's important to compare planes in similar configurations. Are you comparing a clean F6F to a F4U with racks and rails? Often times, test summaries don't tell you that. I'm not attempting to answer any question, simply making an observation you probably already understand.
My interest was specifically the F4U-4 and F6F-6. Given differences in drag coefficients, weight, power and wing loading, its not hard to guess which plane would perform better even had no tests been available. If the XF6F-6 outperformed the XF4U-4, then there was something unusual about one of the planes that allowed the Hellcat to overcome the advantages of the Corsair. Comparing the planes side-by-side in similar configurations, the -4 Corsair outperforms the -6 Hellcat. Obviously, Grumman and the Navy recognized that, too.
-
Had the Fw-190 truly inspired the Bearcat, the Bearcat would have performed worse than it did.
That's funny....
The FW-190A9 is around 300lbs lighter empty than the F8F-1. Of course it is not surprising when the FW-190A9 is faster than the F8F-1.
Again, contact the NASM Garber Facility. They have practical experience with both aircraft and get the word from them. I did.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Your completely misunderstanding what I posted. I know the Bearcat has folding wings. However, it's main wingspar runs almost the same length as the Focke Wulfs:
http://www.shanaberger.com/images/F8F_3.htm
And folds completely differently from the F6F:
(http://img127.potato.com/loc224/th_2c8_aec00674.jpg) (http://img127.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc224&image=2c8_aec00674.jpg)
Notice the difference?
All the best,
Crumpp
No, I haven't misunderstood what you said. You may wish to reread my post in the context it was intended, and that was in response to this:
The F8F was a copy of the Fw 190 adapted to a US-built engine, US armament and the requirement for carrier capability.
Just look at the placement of the landing gear in front of the fore spar which leaves the main part of the wing a full-monocoque torsion box, a unique feature of the Fw 190 and the "secret" of its strong wing construction.
"Just look at it?" OK, I've looked at it.
The Bearcat gear hinges ahead of the main spar. So did the Hellcat gear, though they retracted differently. If Grumman had experience hinging a gear ahead of the main spar, why does HoHun attribute that feature to the examination of the Fw-190? Doesn't make any sense.
And if the spar construction was different than that of the Fw-190, that sort of detracts from the argument that they were similar, and therefore inspired by the Fw-190.
Two different planes, two different designs, with superficial similarities.
The Bearcat was not a "copy" of the Fw-190. The arguments presented thusfar to support that theory fail.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
That's funny....
The FW-190A9 is around 300lbs lighter empty than the F8F-1. Of course it is not surprising when the FW-190A9 is faster than the F8F-1.
Again, contact the NASM Garber Facility. They have practical experience with both aircraft and get the word from them. I did.
All the best,
Crumpp
Garber isn't the official respository for Grumman '40s and 50's era documents, the Grumman Historical Center at Bethpage, New York is. If you want good Grumman technical drawings of the Bearcat or other documents, contact the the GHC. It's from there that I received mine.
BTW, planes don't fly at empty weight. At a loaded 9,200-9,300 lb weight, the F8F-1 had a top speed of 434 mph at 19,800 feet. It also had a military power (NOT combat power) initial climb rate of 5,000 feet per minute. How does that compare to the Fw-190A-9?
-
And if the spar construction was different than that of the Fw-190, that sort of detracts from the argument that they were similar, and therefore inspired by the Fw-190.
Examine the landing gear of the Focke Wulf and the Bearcat.
http://www.shanaberger.com/images/F8F_3.htm
http://www.white1foundation.org/photos/Black3/21.jpg
The Bearcat gear hinges ahead of the main spar. So did the Hellcat gear,
Which has nothing to do with the FW-190/Bearcat similarities. The F6F landing gear were attached by a yoke assembly to a section of the main wingspar that ran thru the center. That main wingspar was in multiple pieces bolted together.
Nothing at all like the Bearcat or the FW-190.
The Bearcat was not a "copy" of the Fw-190.
I don't see any such claims in this thread so do not sensationalize. Big difference between copy and influence.
Upon returning to the Grumman facility, the influence of flying the Focke Wulf deliberately crept into the design process.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I don't see any such claims in this thread so do not sensationalize. Big difference between copy and influence.
All the best,
Crumpp [/B]
Again, Crumpp
HoHun wrote:
The F8F was a copy of the Fw 190 adapted to a US-built engine, US armament and the requirement for carrier capability.
I'm glad we agree on that.
-
BTW, planes don't fly at empty weight. At a loaded 9,200-9,300 lb weight, the F8F-1 had a top speed of 434 mph at 19,800 feet. It also had a military power (NOT combat power) initial climb rate of 5,000 feet per minute. How does that compare to the Fw-190A-9?
I don't know, how does it compare? 421mph is the fastest I can find for the F8F-1 and a climb rate of 4500fpm.
Let's look at the XF8F which did have a 5000fpm climb rate:
http://img22.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=9d0_XF8Fperformance2.jpg
The chart on the FW-190A9 is fully loaded.
http://img111.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=d5f_Doraspeed3.jpg
This small exerpt is flown at combat weight at Start u Notleistung not Erhöhte Notleistung.
http://img111.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=72c_FW190A9.jpg
The Bearcat has the FW-190A9 on sustained climb but not by much. The Climb on the FW-190A9 runs from 3900fpm to 4500fpm depending on the weight/prop.
All in all very comparable aircraft when it comes to performance especially when you consider aircraft performance is percentage range not an absolute.
As the guys who restored both the Focke Wulf and Bearcat at the NASM told me, they are almost the same plane. In fact, they refer to the FW-190 as the "Teutonic Bearcat".
Pretty good for the Focke Wulf when you consider it has 300 cu inches less displacement.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
The F8F was a copy of the Fw 190
Is not a true statement.
However, when you consider the rest of Hohun's statement:
adapted to a US-built engine, US armament and the requirement for carrier capability.
It becomes a true statement. Just as Widewing wrote:
Upon returning to the Grumman facility, the influence of flying the Focke Wulf deliberately crept into the design process.
Both statements are accurate descriptions of the Bearcat's FW-190 influence.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I don't know, how does it compare? 421mph is the fastest I can find for the F8F-1 and a climb rate of 4500fpm.
Not sure what the 421 mph speed is, but the climb rate is a Normal Power climb rate.
434 mph is a clean wet WEP speed for the production F8F-1 on 100/130 PN fuel.
Let's look at the XF8F which did have a 5000fpm climb rate:
5,850 fpm initial climb rate:
(http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/bear2.jpg)
The climb charts that accompany this Vought document may still be available on the web. If you don’t have it, I’ll be happy to post it.
The Bearcat has the FW-190A9 on sustained climb but not by much. The Climb on the FW-190A9 runs from 3900fpm to 4500fpm depending on the weight/prop.
The Pilot’s Handbook for the F8F-1 lists the following Time-To-Climb figures:
1 minute to 5,000 feet
2.13 minutes to 10,000 feet
3.36 minutes to 15,000 feet
4.80 minutes to 20,000 feet
6.60 minutes to 25,000 feet
These are Military Power Climb rates. The chart in the manual does not show any performance on WEP and states War Emergency Power ratings had not yet been established at the time. These are ratings on 100/130 grade fuel.
Combat Power climb rates would have been in excess of these figures, and probably close to that of the XF8F-1.
All in all very comparable aircraft when it comes to performance especially when you consider aircraft performance is percentage range not an absolute.
Not quite as comparable when correct figures are used.
As the guys who restored both the Focke Wulf and Bearcat at the NASM told me, they are almost the same plane. In fact, they refer to the FW-190 as the "Teutonic Bearcat".
Again, not supported by Grumman histories or documents. I think this is a myth started by someone who noticed some superficial similarities between planes and decided one must be based on the other. I’d thoroughly love some real evidence that the Bearcat is based on the Fw-190. Unfortunately, it seems to be lacking in credible histories, although it abounds on the web.
Pretty good for the Focke Wulf when you consider it has 300 cu inches less displacement.
Never said it was a bad performer.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Is not a true statement.
However, when you consider the rest of Hohun's statement:
It becomes a true statement. Just as Widewing wrote:
Both statements are accurate descriptions of the Bearcat's FW-190 influence.
All the best,
Crumpp
Neither say anything substantial. Both say the Fw-190 influenced the Bearcat, but neither say how.
There is not a single aspect of the Bearcat's design that was miraculously revealed to them by an inspection of an Fw-190. The Bearcat, despite superlative performance, was an extraordinarily conventional design.
If you can come up with something meaningful, I'd like to hear it. So far that hasn't happened. The "I've talked to the people at Garber..." isn't sufficient. I could say the same thing. And I have obtained substantial records and documents on the both the F7F and F8F from the GHC and none it supports an Fw-190 relationship.
The burden of proof is on the one that makes the claim. Internet sources and other unsubstantiated claims that perpetuate internet rumor just don't cut it.
So far, the only influence on the design of the Bearcat was need. Rene Francillon sums it up nicely:
(http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/bearcat.jpg)
If the Fw-190 had been any sort of a major influence, you'd think the likes of Francillon would have mentioned it.
-
Looks like a solid Grumman to me ;)
-
If you can come up with something meaningful, I'd like to hear it.
Try the mainwing spar construction. Unique to the both aircraft as it has been pointed out.
Not quite as comparable when correct figures are used.
See Widewings comments on Grumman set ups.
The Navy always tested at max gross weight, Grumman usually tested with one hour of fuel, plus reserve. Grumman generally did not add ballast for uninstalled ammunition (although Republic did). Grumman primped and preened the aircraft before testing, whereas the Navy flew them as is/was.
Crumpp says:
The Bearcat has the FW-190A9 on sustained climb but not by much.
Which is a true statement.
Funny you posted exactly the same chart I did on the XF8F, BTW.
The FW-190A9 is generally faster than the Bearcat while the Bearcat generally outclimbs the FW-190A9.
How much combat did the F8F-1 see in World War II? Did it shoot down any aircraft?
The FW-190A9 went into combat in the Summer of 1944 and fought until the end.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
F8F-1 from Airplane Characteristics & Performance Navaer-1335D 1st June 1945. 1 fuselage and 2 wing bomb racks, 9,386lbs. Note this on 100/130 grade, later 115/145 grade used and 70"hg. Speed with this rating comes from Gruman F8F Bearcat by Christopher Chant.
Fw 190 A-9 from Crumps chart.
(http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/cad.gif)
Neil.
-
Was the Hp very different?
Anyway for a navalized aircraft the performance is spectacular.
And from Crumpp:
"Try the mainwing spar construction. Unique to the both aircraft as it has been pointed out"
And the A6m? Was asking about it, but didn't see a reply. It's from Deighton's "blood, tears and folly" but I just don't have the book with me at the moment, so it's a memory issue. I do recall with certainty that he mention the wing as a "whole" running through the underside of the fuselage to create a lot of strenght.
-
Shorty,
Trust me when I say that I am extremely careful of the loading and drag conditions listed in all performance charts.
When measuring speed it is important to check the drag condition as weight does not matter. When measuring climb the Pylons, rocket stubs and sway bars do not matter because the parasaite drag does not affect the A/C very much at climbing speed but the weight will affect it draticaly.
In the two climb test I mentioned I have the weight and loading data for each A/C so I feel comfortable with both of the test.
The document you have from Vought came from my site.
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/ (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/)
Here is the link for the A6M5 test
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/TAICzero.pdf
-
who cares what influenced what... fact is F8F is a big fat ugly pig and 190 is a sexy sleak looking Totmaschine... ;-)
-
Navaer 1335 D 1 June 1945.
F8F-1 R-2800-34W 100/130 grade 2,380 hp at sl 2400hp at 1000ft 1850hp at 15500ft.
Grumman Bearcat by Chant.
F8F-1 R-2800-34W 2,750hp at sl 2,450 hp at 9,600ft. My guess is that this is possibly the later rating using 115/145 grade. The F8F-1 power chart from 1949 shows 70"hg with 115/145.
Neil.
-
Fw 190 A-9 from Crumps chart.
You better do some recalculations. You have the heaviest an FW-190A9 can be up against a combat weight Bearcat.
At 1.65ata a combat weight FW-190A8 was doing 588kph. Just as fast as a fully loaded FW-190A9 does on 1.78ata.
wing as a "whole"
Is not the same as a solid one piece wingspar, Angus. Many low wing monoplanes have the entire wing running under the fuselage.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
(http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/cad.gif)
:)
Thank you, Neil. That little red square comports nicely with my earlier statement:
434 mph is a clean wet WEP speed for the production F8F-1 on 100/130 PN fuel.
So, the widely published "421 mph" speed IS a wet WEP speed in COMBAT configuration, ie racks. The 434 mph speed is just as I stated, wet WEP in CLEAN configuration.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Trust me when I say that I am extremely careful of the loading and drag conditions listed in all performance charts.
I know you are. I've read your substantive posts and understand that you understand. My comments were more rhetorical, a sort of written inner monologue :).
The document you have from Vought came from my site.
I was aware of that site, but unware it was yours. Much appreciated, it's a great resource.
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/TAICzero.pdf [/B]
Got it, had it for some time, actually. Think I found a link to it at this site.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Funny you posted exactly the same chart I did on the XF8F, BTW.
I thought it was odd that you said the XF8F climbed at 5,000 fpm when the very chart you relied on said ti climbed at 5,850 fpm.
Substantial difference.
How much combat did the F8F-1 see in World War II? Did it shoot down any aircraft?
The FW-190A9 went into combat in the Summer of 1944 and fought until the end.
All the best,
Crumpp [/B]
When the arguments fail, the course of the conversation always seems to turn to, "well, how many planes did your plane shoot down?"
:aok
-
So, the widely published "421 mph" speed IS a wet WEP speed in COMBAT configuration, ie racks. The 434 mph speed is just as I stated, wet WEP in CLEAN configuration.
I guess everyone just sees what they want to see. Someone convert 672kph to miles per hour. It falls a little more to the right than is shown on that homemade graph.
So the homemade chart proves it....
Neil completely ignores the FW-190A9 flight test at the same conditions as the 434 mph F8F-1. At Take off power, without the ETC 501 rack, that FW-190A9 is equally fast as the Bearcat. Using Erhöhte Notleistung it would be faster.
That test, in a clean configuration, has the FW-190A9 doing 432 mph at FTH at Start u Notleistung not it's emergency rating of Erhöhte Notleistung.
Again not bad for a plane with 300 cu inches less displacement and very comparible to the Bearcat.
When the arguments fail, the course of the conversation always seems to turn to, "well, how many planes did your plane shoot down?"
No it simply points out you are comparing different design generations. The Bearcat is a much newer design which does not represent a quantum leap in performance over the older Antons. The FW-190A9 is very comparible and the Bearcat represent no competition for the Dora.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
The superior climb performance of the cat is no evidence that it wasn't inspired & to a degree a copy of the 190. Again the stated goal was to make their own version of it, but better, Which it would seem they did.
& remember, when you have an already proven design, copying it & improving it is not so tough.
P.S. the NASM engineers are obviously well qualified to speak, but would not the Gruman engineers be an even better source? If they are still alive that is.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
No it simply points out you are comparing different design generations. The Bearcat is a much newer design which does not represent a quantum leap in performance over the older Antons. The FW-190A9 is very comparible and the Bearcat represent no competition for the Dora.
All the best,
Crumpp [/B]
Which "Dora" are you talking about? The only Dora advantage I see is straight speed. That's it. Still greatly inferior in climb rate. And probably even less of a match in manueverability than the slower Antons.
-
Dora handled better than Antons in dogfights according to those who flew it. Oscar Romm for one. It didn't bleed off speed in turns like the A series did.
-
Originally posted by agent 009
The superior climb performance of the cat is no evidence that it wasn't inspired & to a degree a copy of the 190. Again the stated goal was to make their own version of it, but better, Which it would seem they did.
& remember, when you have an already proven design, copying it & improving it is not so tough.
The jury is still out on whether the Fw-190 connection is fact or myth. Superficial similarities is no proof the Fw inspired the Bearcat. And as far as I know, even the internet sources say the Grumman folks test flew, NOT dissected, the Fw-190.
P.S. the NASM engineers are obviously well qualified to speak, but would not the Gruman engineers be an even better source? If they are still alive that is. [/B]
The staff at Grumman Historical Center are mainly retirees from Grumman who work to maintain a respository for Grumman historical documents. In the number of manuals, drawings and documents I've obtained from them on the F7F and F8F, I've never run across the mention of a Fw-190 connection.
-
Originally posted by ShortyDoowap
Neither say anything substantial. Both say the Fw-190 influenced the Bearcat, but neither say how.
There is not a single aspect of the Bearcat's design that was miraculously revealed to them by an inspection of an Fw-190. The Bearcat, despite superlative performance, was an extraordinarily conventional design.
If you can come up with something meaningful, I'd like to hear it. So far that hasn't happened. The "I've talked to the people at Garber..." isn't sufficient. I could say the same thing. And I have obtained substantial records and documents on the both the F7F and F8F from the GHC and none it supports an Fw-190 relationship.
The burden of proof is on the one that makes the claim. Internet sources and other unsubstantiated claims that perpetuate internet rumor just don't cut it.
So far, the only influence on the design of the Bearcat was need. Rene Francillon sums it up nicely:
If the Fw-190 had been any sort of a major influence, you'd think the likes of Francillon would have mentioned it.
A few points. I disagree with any claim that the XF8F-1 was a copy of the Fw 190A-4, which is what Hall and Gillies flew while at Farnborough. Hall has readily admitted that design decisions were made based upon their testing of the 190. However, that's a long way from copying the 190... Light years away. It is no closer to reality than claiming that the Japanese aviation industry copied the Vought (nee Northrop) V-143. Japanese designers examined the Vought very closely and borrowed ideas and even layouts. But their designs were unique to the needs of Japan in the middle-late 1930s. One Vought engineer who had an opportunity to inspect a captured Zero stated that the entire accessory section and cooler layout was taken directly from the V-143. However, being smart enough to not re-invent the wheel does not constitute copying the design of the aircraft.
This same concept applies to all aircraft designers. These people do not work in a vaccum. Each designer is influenced by the work of those who came before him, and even his contemporaries. Kurt Tank has stated several times that one of the greatest influences for the Fw 190 was the work of American designer Richard Palmer. Palmer's design of Howard Hughes' H-1 racer very much impressed Tank. No one would argue that Tank copied the H-1. He was, however, very much influenced by that highly advanced racer. And why not, it was able to set a world speed record for landplanes in 1935 on just 1,000 horsepower.
(http://www.wrightools.com/hughes/h1images/tailup.jpg)
(http://www.wrightools.com/hughes/pictures/belly.jpg)
As to the XF8F-1. Shortly after deciding to design the new fighter, Roy Grumman took Hall and Gillies and went to Farnborough in September 1943, where they examined and flew a captured Fw 190. In Corky Meyer's words, "all three were enamored with the Focke Wulf 190A-4 after Bud and Bob flew it". Meyer (who was Grumman's first full-time Experimental Test Pilot and worked directly for Hall) states that the Fw 190 was an important catalyst to the design of the Bearcat. Meyer was a close friend of Hall and presumably has considerable insight into the whys and hows of the F8F's design evolution. Meyer has written about this over the past 5 years. See his biography of Hall in the October 2000 edition of Flight Journal.
My opinion is that Grumman borrowed ideas from the Focke Wulf. They took the basic design premise, improved and expanded upon that concept producing what is probably the most extraordinary prop driven fighter ever to see mass production. However, to claim that the Bearcat is a copy of the Fw 190 is going far beyond mere influence and assigns credit where it is not due.
Grumman copied Tank no more than Tank copied Palmer, who borrowed from.... etc...
If it's copies you are looking for, you need look no further than the Bell X-5.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Why would they have any docs that mention the 190? Did "any" aviation company keep records on other airplanes that they borrowed stuff or ideas from during the war? of course not! the very idea is silly.
The "Dora" could out-climb and out-dive its BMW 801-powered predecessor with ease, and it possessed an excellent turning rate at speed. An experienced pilot could pull a tighter turn in a D-9 than he could with the BMW-powered FW-190A.
Who said it was a direct copy? What has been said is that it's design was copied from the 190 design. And oneupped.
& unlike Tank & the Zero team, ( as far as we know), they, Grumman had a 190 on hand to dissect & use.
-
Originally posted by agent 009
Who said it was a direct copy? What has been said is that it's design was copied from the 190 design. And oneupped.
You have to be careful with terms like "design". As a Design Engineer, I view the term as more than a basic concept. Copying one of my designs would be nothing less than a patent violation, or more simply put; outright theft.
Being influenced by a design is not the same thing. We often borrow ideas from other designers, but our new product is often unrecognizable from that which inspired it. I know firsthand that no one designs in a vacuum.
Oh, Grumman did not have a 190 available to study. They had three days to examine and fly the plane at Farnborough. Hardly enough time to learn more than the general layout and concept of design. When Grumman, Hall and Gillies returned to Bethpage, they were not carrying thousands of engineering drawings. All they had were their handwritten notes.. But those notes were quite valuable in laying out their unique idea of what a super high-performance radial dogfighter should be.
My regards,
Widewing
-
These people do not work in a vaccum. Each designer is influenced by the work of those who came before him, and even his contemporaries.
Agreed.
That the Grumman folks flew the Fw-190, and were even taken by it, is undisputed by me. But the claim that the Bearcat was a Fw copy, or that the Fw was the impetus to design of the Bearcat, is absurb. Grumman didn't set out to build their own Fw-190 as some would have us believe. They set out to build a small carrier fighter with spectacular performance.
The impetus for the design of the Bearcat was a need. It didn't take the examination of the Fw to realize that need. If Grumman borrowed an idea from the Fw here and there (or from any plane for that matter), then they did no different than any other designer of any other aircraft from any other nation.
The question remains, though, in WHAT MANNER did the Fw-190 influence the Bearcat? Some suggest the mating of a big engine to a small air frame. Given Grumman's July 1943 specification for a power loading of 4 lbs/hp, it stands to reason that would have been the only way to meet that specification. It wouldn't take the examination of a Focke Wulf to draw that conclusion. Gears mounted ahead of the main spar? Doubtful, the Mustang had that, and the desire to keep weight down, as well as simplicity, would have been the major influence on inward retracting (instead of rotating and retracting) landing gears. That weight consideration, as well as simplicity, was also a reason Grumman chose conventionally folding wings for the Bearcat.
So what was it? Maybe the influence was simply the understanding of the performance characteristics of the Fw-190, and the understanding that any new fighter produced by Grumman needed to outperform a plane it may meet in combat. That's a pretty substantial influence.
-
"But the claim that the Bearcat was a Fw copy, or that the Fw was the impetus to design of the Bearcat, is absurb."
Except for the fact that they mentioned that that was the case. The impetus part. After flying one in England.
laying out their unique idea of what a super high-performance radial dogfighter should be.
Wasn't all that unique. The overall dimensions are also "very" close to the 190.
Cat
Length 27' 6"
Height 13' 10"
Wing Span 35' 6"
FW 190 A-8
Wing span: 34 ft 5.5 in (10.49 m)
Length: 29 ft (8.84 m)
Height: 13 ft (3.96 m)
-
Originally posted by agent 009
Why would they have any docs that mention the 190? Did "any" aviation company keep records on other airplanes that they borrowed stuff or ideas from during the war? of course not! the very idea is silly.
The GHC is a repository for documents, memorandums, drawing, letters, pictures, etc... It is staffed by Grumman retirees. Historical Grumman documents are retired to this location. If you want to research a particular Grumman aircraft, that's the place to start. And you may need go no further. Currently, Northrop-Grumman does not maintain an archives of its own that is open to the public, or even to researchers (authors, etc). I've checked, thoroughly, even to the extent of enlisting the considerable help of my father-in-law, who is the head of Navy Contracts for submarines at Northrop/Grumman Newport News. (Heck, I wasn't even able to get drawings of the old USS Ranger from Northrop Grumman , and they own the shipyard that built it.) No luck, Grumman refers aircraft researchers to the GHC. If memorandums or documents exist concerning the the examination (or in your words, the dissection) of the Fw-190 in 1943, the GHC would be the most likely to have it. Of course, I've only obtained a tiny, tiny fraction of what they have, and only on those topics that interest me. But I've never seen anything remotely official that speaks to the Fw-190 event.
-
So if they examined a 190 like they say they did,even for 3 days, why is it such a suprise that they didn't carry some documents about it?
-
Originally posted by agent 009
"But the claim that the Bearcat was a Fw copy, or that the Fw was the impetus to design of the Bearcat, is absurb."
Except for the fact that they mentioned that that was the case. The impetus part. After flying one in England.
laying out their unique idea of what a super high-performance radial dogfighter should be.
Wasn't all that unique. The overall dimensions are also "very" close to the 190.
Cat
Length 27' 6"
Height 13' 10"
Wing Span 35' 6" [/B]
According to Widewing, the Fw-190 was flown in September 1943.
The need for a small, high performing carrier fighter was recognized, and the the specifications set forth, in July 1943. Read the page I posted from "Grumman Aircraft." The Fw-190 could not have been the impetus.
-
Originally posted by agent 009
So if they examined a 190 like they say they did,even for 3 days, why is it such a suprise that they didn't carry some documents about it?
Ok, I 've never posted at this site because I don't play Aces High, and I have nothing to say about that game. I decided to post in this thread because it was a very interesting subject. But now you are badgering, and responding to you is becoming a bore. It's clear you've already drawn your conclusions. Believe what you like.
-
I'm not badgering, they admit having a 190 on hand. their admission is enough to prove they had one. your claim that there is no document of it does not prove they didn't have one.
Here's some wing load data: Bearcat = 53.1 lbs/sq ft; Fw 190 A-6 = 46.3 lbs/sq ft.
A-8 Wing loading: 277 kg/m² (57 lb/ft²)
In a message dated 8/31/2005 10:42:07 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email]
FW 190
Wingspan 34.ft 5.5 in.
Length 29 ft 1.5 inch
Height 13 ft o inch.
Bearcat
Wingspan 35 ft 10 inch
Length 28 ft 3 inch
Height 13 ft 10 inch.
OK, similarities, 4 20 mil cannon on later models, streamlined radial, lightweight frame, wing design similarities covered by Crump,( Mustang wing design not the same). overall dimensions very similiar. Wing shape near identical. wide track landing gear. Wing loading similiar. canopy somewhat similiar.
-
"The need for a small, high performing carrier fighter was recognized, and the the specifications set forth, in July 1943. Read the page I posted from "Grumman Aircraft." The Fw-190 could not have been the impetus."
This below proves you wrong Shorty.
after Bud and Bob flew it". Meyer (who was Grumman's first full-time Experimental Test Pilot and worked directly for Hall) states that the Fw 190 was an important catalyst to the design of the Bearcat.
Catalyst is a similiar word to impetus.
Heck the timing couldn't be more perfect. They deside they need a small fast intercepter to replace the Hellcat in July, 2 months later In Sept they fly the 190 & wa la, they have exactly the perfect model to base their new design needs on.
-
Originally posted by agent 009
I'm not badgering, they admit having a 190 on hand. their admission is enough to prove they had one. your claim that there is no document of it does not prove they didn't have one.
Here's some wing load data: Bearcat = 53.1 lbs/sq ft; Fw 190 A-6 = 46.3 lbs/sq ft.
In a message dated 8/31/2005 10:42:07 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email]
FW 190
Wingspan 34.ft 5.5 in.
Length 29 ft 1.5 inch
Height 13 ft o inch.
Bearcat
Wingspan 35 ft 10 inch
Length 28 ft 3 inch
Height 13 ft 10 inch.
OK, similarities, 4 20 mil cannon on later models, streamlined radial, lightweight frame, wing design similarities covered by Crump, Mustang wing design not the same. overall dimensions very similiar. Wing shape near identical. wide track landing gear. Wing loading similiar. canopy somewhat similiar.
Now you are being plain silly.
Loaded weight of the Bearcat was 9,300 lbs. Wing area was 244 sq ft. That's a wing loading of 38.11 lbs / sq foot. Wet WEP HP was around 2,300 hp. That's a powerloading of around 4.04 lbs / HP.
-
No, look at the wing layouts earlier in the thread. very similiar, nothing silly about it.
OK, here is the key. You gotta read it man.
Both Gillies and Hall evaluated the Fw 190 and found it to be the aircraft they would have liked to have designed themselves. It was exactly what the Hellcat follow-on aircraft should be.
In early 1943, Grumman officials were invited to England to see the captured fighters of the Axis powers and to fly some of them. The test team included: Leroy Grumman, president of Grumman and test pilot during and after WW I; Bud Gillies, vice president flight operations and a test pilot current in all American airplanes at that time; and Bob Hall, chief engineerexperimental, a famous test pilot of Grumman and other airplanes of the Gee Bee era.
Of all the airplanes they saw, they were most fascinated with the Focke-Wulf 190. It not only offered sprightly performance, but it also had excellent flight characteristics with a gross weight of 8,750 pounds and only 1,730hp. The Hellcat was 3,200 pounds heavier with just 270hp more. Both Gillies and Hall evaluated the Fw 190 and found it to be the aircraft they would have liked to have designed themselves. It was exactly what the Hellcat follow-on aircraft should be. The only things the Fw 190 lacked were a good gunnery-lead computing angle of vision over the nose and a structure that would withstand carrier operations.
The Focke-Wulf impressed them so much they felt compelled to hurry home and put together an airplane of this gross weight in time for the water-injected Pratt & Whitney R-2800 C model engine of 2,400hp (War Emergency Power) to be installed. This would give our naval aviators a big performance increase over the newer Japanese fighters and would still retain the proven performance of the P&W R-2800 series production engines installed in the Hellcat.
The F8F design was started immediately on the trio's return. Mr. Grumman took a direct hand in its design. As the design progressed, it became obvious that meeting the 8,750-pound gross weight of the Focke-Wulf would be difficult. The structure required to withstand the loads encountered during carrier operations hadn't been required in the Fw 190 and would impose significant weight penalties on the new design.
& here is the last key..
The F8F design was started immediately on the trio's return
on trio's return, not July. End of story.
-
Im sure the design of the nose had a lot to do with forward visibility on CV landings, not gunnery issues. One of the reasons the USN gave the F4U-1 a hard time on getting CV qualified, was the long nose. The RN adapted a particular landing technique for it.
-
Well, here's another wing loading spec. nowhere near 38.11
Historical and Current Conflicts Forum
... Do 335. F8F Bearcat. --Toughest Aircraft-- ... loaded to its normal gross weight of 105,000 pounds, the wing loading is 61.4 pounds per square foot. ...
Will seek more.
-
Well, havin trouble with finding more wing loading data. But here is an exerpt from Corky Meyer, ( you'll note he mentions the 190 ). In a 1998 Flight Journal article.
The timing of getting the Bearcat to the fleet was perfect. Not only was it an exciting airplane to fly (one could even see the Focke-Wulf heritage), but it was also 47 knots faster than the Hellcat, without water injection, and took off in 200 feet of carrier-deck space compared to the Hellcat's 325-feet requirement. It had an amazing rate of climb of 5,340 feet per minute, which was more than twice the Hellcat's! It had the fastest rate of climb of any propeller-driven fighter in the War.
-
Originally posted by ShortyDoowap
Ok, I 've never posted at this site because I don't play Aces High, and I have nothing to say about that game. I decided to post in this thread because it was a very interesting subject. But now you are badgering, and responding to you is becoming a bore. It's clear you've already drawn your conclusions. Believe what you like.
Exactly... When (of all people) Hohun threatens to put me on his ignore list (as if I give a rat's arse) I gave up. I knew no matter how absurd and without merit their defiant claims were they'd never even listen. "Oh my god!! It's got a solid spar under the fuselage!!! It's a direct copy of the 190!!!" bulls***. As has been mentioned MANY planes had that, WELL before the Fw190. I call it what it is -- absurd, and I'm heckled for it. So screw 'em. I'll not play their game. I generally only participate in threads that are open to discussion
-
It is open to discussion, & speaking for myself, I believe what Corky Meyer says & the Grumman engineers said. Based on what they've said, the Bearcat was very much inspired & influenced by the 190. Period.
& It is similiar to the 190 in several ways as described above. designed for carrier use, so yes some differences as well. But again NASM & Meyer have more clout than anyone here. I don't say that to be offensive, I say it cause it is reality.
P.S. Wildcat ace Gaylen has also commented on this Bearcat 190 subject. he was in on the Corsair's front canopy design. He was one "who was there" who says, although they don't like to admit it, the cat was based on the 190. Will look for article. Admiral Gaylen is his name 98% sure.
-
Here we go, Gayler, not Gaylen. Cat was based on 190 even though they don't like to admit it.
Well, I'll stick with Admiral Gayler. He was there, You weren't. He said it was based on 190, I believe him.
http://www.aviation-history.com/airmen/coralsea.htm -
His comment was in a 'Military History' magazine article from few months ago.
Now perhaps we can cool off & forget it. I think the case is settled.
-
Crump post some better A-9 data and I will add it to my home made graph.
F8F-1, 9,386lbs is fully loaded with 3 racks. Vrs a fully loaded A-9. What would you have me do?
BTW I included the higher engine rating for the A-9 :)
Neil.
-
MANY planes had that, WELL before the Fw190.
Name some WWII fighters then that had solid main wingspars. The reason it was not done was the difficulty in repairing damaged aircraft. Not something generally desired in a Military aircraft and a departure for Tank from one of the design concepts of the Focke Wulf 190.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
a6m?
-
Crump post some better A-9 data and I will add it to my home made graph.
I don't need to post better data, Neil. Everything is already there. I don't see any better F8F data, just your reference.
F8F-1, 9,386lbs is fully loaded with 3 racks. Vrs a fully loaded A-9. What would you have me do?
You will have to post that one along with aircraft configuration. I can't find ANY data to support the 434mph with three wingracks. Even the much lighter XF8F clean could not approach that speed. So I have to wonder where in the percentage range this Bearcat data you present falls.
Now the 434 seems very plausible for a clean configuration F8F-1 under normal Grumman testing standards. Which we know hardly represents a frontline aircraft.
Engine: 2,100hp Pratt & Whitney R-2800-34W Double Wasp 18-cylinder radial piston engine
Weight: Empty 7,070 lbs., Max Takeoff 12,947 lbs.
Wing Span: 35ft. 10in.
Length: 28ft. 3in.
Height: 13ft. 10in.
Performance:
Maximum Speed at 19,700ft: 421mph
Cruising Speed: 163mph
Initial Climb Rate: 4570 feet per minute
Ceiling: 38,700ft
Range: 1,105 miles
Armament:
Four 20mm cannon
Hardpoints for two 1,000lb bombs, or four 127mm (0.5in) rockets, or two 150-gal fuel tanks
http://www.warbirdalley.com/bearcat.htm
Which matches everyone elses flight tested data on the Bearcat. I don't see replacing 6 slightly smaller diameter holes with 4 larger ones creating a 10+ mph speed difference.
So the "lightweight" Bearcat weighs in at 4,257.42 kilograms. Not much "lighter" than the FW-190A9. In fact it has the almost the exact same weight as the FW-190A8 at 4272Kg!
All the best,
Crumpp
-
a6m?
I can't find anything showing a solid main wingspar. Plenty of references to the cockpit design reenforcing the wing. Completely different though from a solid main wingspar.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
rgr. Anyway I have the book back next week.
Might have a look in the meantime.
(just went shopping...books....again!)
So is Neil's graph fundamentally wrong?
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Name some WWII fighters then that had solid main wingspars.
At least Brewster Buffalo, VL Myrsky and Fokker D.XXI have it.
-
DEFINATELY NOT a FW 190 unique invention then :D
-
DEFINATELY NOT a FW 190 unique invention then
According to the USAAF, the FW-190 wing construction is unique.
While I don't know about the others, the Brewster does not have a solid main wing spar. It has a continuous main box. This is constructed of built up web and cap construction.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Crump re-read the chart, 434mph clean 421mph with 3 wing racks.
Neil.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
While I don't know about the others, the Brewster does not have a solid main wing spar. It has a continuous main box. This is constructed of built up web and cap construction.
Yep, I guess it depends on the terminology. Jukka Raunio uses finnish term "kotelosalko" ....ie. something like "a box spar". After the he continues using the term "spar".
Just by looking at the structure looks like a continuous spar which consists of two thicker and several thinner subsections.
Fokker uses a true box spar and Myrsky has two continous main spars.
-
Crump re-read the chart, 434mph clean 421mph with 3 wing racks.
Your chart does not convey that impression then Neil. It does not list the speeds of the clean configuration FW-190A9 and only compares the FW-190A9 with ETC 501.
When you add that curve it becomes clear that the F8F and FW-190A9 are very comparible aircraft even using Grumman's data.
Using other agencies testing of the Bearcat, the FW-190A9 is superior in speed.
The weights are also comparible as many seem to quote the empty weight of the F8F instead of it's loaded weight.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Just by looking at the structure looks like a continuous spar which consists of two thicker and several thinner subsections.
It's actually jointed between the center section/wings. A strong structure without a doubt. If not for the lack of armour, the F2A-1 Brewster was a surprisingly nimble aircraft which many compare to the A6M!
Fokker uses a true box spar and Myrsky has two continous main spars.
Do not have much information to dispute this other than the Myrsky had wooden construction. I would be very careful though. A continous spar is not the same as a one piece spar.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Yep, Brewster Model 239 has just a tad higher wing loading than A6M2. According to Boyington for example it sure was a very maneuverable fighter "Those little ***ks could turn inside a phone booth" pretty much were his words. :)
With 1200hp Cyclone instead of the 1000hp one it would have been even more interesting plane considering its opposition. :)
Those Myrsky's spars are wooden singlepiece spars...used a different term. Yep, I see the difference between those terms...just typed it quickly.
-
Crumpp I've trouble visualizing this part, do you have any image/ blue print with it ?
-
But the buffalo didn't even have 1000hp, by the time it got past 900 hp it was weighted down heavily with armor and other stuff, and no longer flew very well. So 1200 hp wouldn't mean much if it still flew like a p39 :P
-
Crump,
navaer-1335 D 1st June 1945.
F8F-1 9,386lbs 183 galls fuel 10 galls oil 1200 rds .50 cal.
1 fuselage rack and 2 wing racks.
421mph 19700ft
382 mph SL
Time to 10,000ft 2.6 mins
Time to 20,000ft 5.7 mins
Rate of climb at SL 4,570ft/min.
1 fuselage rack.
9,334 lbs
Fuel oil and ammo same as above.
429mph at 19,900ft
391mph at SL
Time to 10,000ft 2.5 mins
Time to 20,000ft 5.7 mins
Rate of climb at SL 4,600ft/min
Clean condition with all bomb racks and sway bracing removed. Vmax/SL = 394 mph Vmax=434mph/19,800ft
R-2800-34W
2,380hp at SL
2,400hp at 1000ft
1790hp at 9,500ft
1,850hp at 15,500ft.
Fw 190 A-9 with ETC 501.
(http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/cad.gif)
Neil
-
Originally posted by Krusty
But the buffalo didn't even have 1000hp, by the time it got past 900 hp it was weighted down heavily with armor and other stuff, and no longer flew very well. So 1200 hp wouldn't mean much if it still flew like a p39 :P
Read up on the subject.
-
i.e. there were more brewsters than just in the U.S. ;)
-
Here Neil,
This is the last time I ever screw with someones homemade chart. Using your scale, each tick mark is 5mph. Anything less than that is extrapolated, for example 417mph is shown in the solid read line by spliting the difference between 415 and 420.
I dug out the data and made some corrections. The lines on that graph are rather fat and unclear.
When both aircraft are equipped with racks, the Bearcat has a definate advantage down low. I only shifted the "Erhöhte Notleistung" curve to match the historical data points. You were not off by much at all but enough to show the aircraft were equal for a large chunk of the envelope.
At medium altitudes the FW-190A9 is equal when equipped with ETC 501.
In a clean configuration with the FW-190 at Take Off power and the F8F at emergency, the comparision is similar. Most likely due to the weight and higher drag of the ETC compared to Grumman's hardpoints.
Using the 15-20kph average gain for "Erhöhte Notleistung" would put the FW-190A9 equal or slightly ahead throughout much of the envelope.
As we all know, aircraft performance is a range over a guarenteed percentage from base data. Kind of makes this type of down to the last MPH comparision silly.
(http://img19.potato.com/loc37/th_bb4_a9_vs_Bearcat.JPG) (http://img19.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc37&image=bb4_a9_vs_Bearcat.JPG)
Here's some wing load data: Bearcat = 53.1 lbs/sq ft; Fw 190 A-6 = 46.3 lbs/sq ft.
The FW-190A8 and FW-190A9 fighter variants both have 48lbs/sq ft wingloading at take off weight. Of course it changes for other configurations.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Hi Shorty,
>Hi, first time poster, long time lurker.
Good first post, and follow-ups! :-)
With regard to my "copy" statement: It has to be read in the original context which directly addressed a statement talking about "the copy of design and/or artistic style".
I definitely wasn't thinking of a carbon copy, but a "free" (functional) copy along the lines of individual design elements, design philosophy and geometric proportions (which would be the equivalent to "artistic style" in aircraft design, I guess).
Do I understand you correctly that the F8F does not have the same single-piece spar as the Fw 190 that makes the rear spar an auxiliary spar in nature? Then I was wrong on the close relation between the two aircraft with regard to this specific design feature.
I still consider the F8F similar enough in geometry and layout to consider it a "free" copy of the Fw 190, but as "free copy" is not a clearly defined term, it's up to everyone to decide which degree of "freedom" he accepts in a "copy" :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Krusty,
>When (of all people) Hohun threatens to put me on his ignore list (as if I give a rat's arse) I gave up. I knew no matter how absurd and without merit their defiant claims were they'd never even listen.
Please apologize my lack of patience when confronted with the "silly" statement. Your posts never before had struck me as unfriendly, so I should really have provided a more accurate description of the technical similarities I saw instead of going "fangs out" on the first occassion.
The sad thing is that my patience has been worn down by what I perceive as a general trend towards unfriendliness on this board, and I'm afraid that as a non-native speaker, I sometimes over-react.
I assure you that I have taken your above "sigh" as a sign that you posted the "silly" statement out of genuine disbelieve that someone would actually think the F8F and the Fw 190 are related, and not just as a rethoric device to make the opposition look bad (as I, failing to give you the benefit of doubt, had originally assumed).
I hope that you accept my apology, and am looking forward to future disagreements ;-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
HoHun, thank you for the respectful reply. I understand your position now.
AFAIK, the Bearcat had a spar constructed in substantially the same manner as the Hellcat - web and cap strip construction, with the wing group consisting of a center panel constructed in one piece and running through the fuselage. The wing fuselage assembly was made by lowering the fuselage over the wing center section and attaching the two assemblies.
----
Neil, do you have a top speed for the F8F-1 on the 115/145 PN fuel? Your chart shows a SL speed, but not speed at altitude. Thanks.
----
The climb rates listed are somewhat confusing. The Vought aircraft data sheet shows an initial climb rate for the XF8F of 5,850 fpm at 8,800 lbs and with 1,600 rds of ammo. It doesn't say if that XF8F listed is one of the two prototypes designated XF8F powered by the R-2800-22W engine, or one of the 23 developement aircraft also designated XF8F powered by the R-2800-34W engine.
The F8F-1 manual is confusing as well. The climb chart doesn't mention the engine rating, but the entire manual is devoid of any WEP ratings. Other charts show performance at Military Power and mention at the time no WEP ratings had been specified. So I suspect these are climb times at Military Power rating as well. It shows a climb time to 5,000 feet in 1 minute. 2.13 minutes to 10,000 feet, 3.36 minutes to 15,000 feet, 4.8 minutes to 20,000 feet, and 6.6 minutes to 25,000 feet.
Of course, there is the National Air Races event which featured a stock Navy F8F-1 climbing to 10,000 feet in 94 seconds. Apparently, the only modification to the plane was rigging it so WEP could be reached with the gears down. Even so, that's an astonishing climb rate.
So, the Bearcat was a fast climber, but its hard to make out where all these different climb rates come from.
-
It would be worth noting that the Hellcat & Corsair had narrow track landing gear. & the wide concept, ( even though earlier aircraft had it, Zero etc), was not copied by Grumman til after flying the FW 190.
-
Originally posted by agent 009
It would be worth noting that the Hellcat & Corsair had narrow track landing gear. & the wide concept, ( even though earlier aircraft had it, Zero etc), was not copied by Grumman til after flying the FW 190.
At 12'1", I would not call the F4U's landing gear narrow track.
The F6F had a track of ~11'6".
The 190 had a track of 11'6". (3.5m)
So one was the ~same and the other ~6" wider than the 190.
The P-51 had a track of just over 11'.
-
Corsair photos do not seem to bear this out. nor do Hellcat photos. & we are talking about Grumman aircraft, not Mustangs.
-
At 12'1", I would not call the F4U's landing gear narrow track.
The F6F had a track of ~11'6".
The 190 had a track of 11'6". (3.5m)
So one was the ~same and the other ~6" wider than the 190.
The P-51 had a track of just over 11'.
More importantly you need to examine the ratio of the aircraft span to the landing gear track.
Corsair = 3.39:1
F6F Hellcat (using Milo's figure of 11'6") = 3.72:1
P51 (using Milo's number of 11') = 3.38:1
FW-190 = 2.95:1
The FW-190 had substantially wider gear track than any of the compared aircraft. The US Fighters are just much larger dimensionally.
Anybody know the gear track of the Bearcat?
All the best,
Crumpp
-
From hinge to hinge, it's 11 feet.
-
F8F Bearcat = 3.25:1
Wider than any other US Fighter compared. Assuming no splay and the 11 foot track is correct.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Out of curiosity, was was the Thunderbolt's?
Wing span 40' 9 15/16".
Gear width 15' 7"
Something like 2.60:1
-
Originally posted by agent 009
Corsair photos do not seem to bear this out. nor do Hellcat photos. & we are talking about Grumman aircraft, not Mustangs.
Get some scale drawings and a ruler.
The P-51 was included for comparison.
F8F > 3505mm/11'6"
-
Out of curiosity, was was the Thunderbolt's?
That is correct. I got 2.56:1.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
More importantly you need to examine the ratio of the aircraft span to the landing gear track.
Why ?
In this case the B52 will have an non calculable ratio does it make unable to land ?
-
I hate to be a nattering nabob of negativity, but this thread has taken a dangerously moronic turn
-
Indeed.... Ratio of how wide the gear is to total wingspan?? Say it with me now... "Wtf?!"
-
Hi,
shouldnt the Gear width get shown in relation to the planes hight and weight??
The wingspan isnt related to the groundbehaviour, but the weight and the middle hight of this weight is.
So a better indicator probably would be 'gear width / spinner hight from ground x planeweight weight'. (the spinner height cause its the middle of the engine and the engine normaly is the highest and most heavy point of the plane).
This is a more valid indicator for the stability on the ground and afaik only with the spot on the stability on ground it make sence to talk about the wideness of a undercarriage.
Regarding the 'copy' theory i think like most, the F8F got influenced by the 190, probably it was a 'bit' more influence than usual, but a copy is something different(imho).
It absolutly dont make sence to compare the resulting performence to show the relationship, at least not the Vmax and climb, cause this parformences are to much enginerelated. The roll ratio maybe would be a different, but even here we have other airframes that show fast rolls too.
If it was a copy or not depents to the personel meaning of the word 'Copy'.
Since this isnt a language related forum, this discussion turned to be a bit strange.
Greetings, Knegel
-
If you want to see copying of Fw 190, look at Hawker: Tempest Mk II(engine mount and cowling) and Fury/Sea Fury(designed to fit Air Ministry Specification F.6/42, created after captured Fw 190A-3 was evaluated), also Kawasaki examined Fw 190 engine installation(they actually had one "on hand") to modify the Ki-61, creating the Ki-100.
PS: Re: Knegels sig - A New Zealander by the name of Richard Pearse flew an aircraft with tricycle gear and ailerons a distance of about 350 yards on March 31 1902. On May 11 1903 he flew about 1000 yards, making several turns and following a river until his engine overheated and forced him to land.
-
Hi Crump,
This is the last time I ever screw with someones homemade chart. Using your scale, each tick mark is 5mph. Anything less than that is extrapolated, for example 417mph is shown in the solid read line by spliting the difference between 415 and 420.
Use a steel rule and a calculator.
I believe your chart addition shows V34 Wrk No.410230 is that an Fw 190 A-6 work number?
Neil.
-
I've heard that actually the 190 was a pig on the runway. Or to put it otherwise, - worse than a 109. From looking I wouldn't think so though.
Any comments?
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I can't find anything showing a solid main wingspar. Plenty of references to the cockpit design reenforcing the wing. Completely different though from a solid main wingspar.
All the best,
Crumpp
Hamp's full cantilever wing presents several unorthodox features, outstanding of which is the splice on each side between ribs 10 and 11. (There are 24 ribs from fuselage side to the tip.) Since no design or production advantages are gained, use of the splices may be necessary either to limited length of extrusions available, or to limited milling bed lengths. With these splices, both front and rear spars are continuous from tip to tip, like those on the Focke-Wulf 190 (analyzed in AVIATION for October, 1944) so that if either side is damaged, the entire wing-together with integral fore fuselage section-must be replaced.
http://rwebs.net/avhistory/history/Zeke32.htm
-
I believe your chart addition shows V34 Wrk No.410230 is that an Fw 190 A-6 work number?
Yes. Many FW-190A9's were converted from older airframes. All new production of the Anton fuselage was modified in July '44 to accept the BMW801S, H, and U motors.
The NASM FW-190F9 started out as an FW-190A7.
Do you want more data from other FW-190A9's?
Use a steel rule and a calculator.
The lines are good and the marks correct. I will not trade drawings of a homemade chart back and forth on the BBS.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Why is it so hard to believe that the FW190 influenced some of the design of the Bearcat?
ack-ack
-
Indeed.... Ratio of how wide the gear is to total wingspan?? Say it with me now... "Wtf?!"
I hate to be a nattering nabob of negativity, but this thread has taken a dangerously moronic turn
Yes it has taken a dangerous turn due to a couple of factors.
First we have a few individuals posting about a subject they know absolutely nothing about without even to bother taking a few seconds to Google it. This is not so bad as we are all learning.
Secondly these posters want to be insulting. Now this is a bad thing.
Pitch and Roll angles are directly related to landing gear stabilty. The comparision ratio was never intended to be an exact reference. It was just a quick way to paint a much clearer picture of landing gear design than simply taking the track measurement.
Intelligent discussion is appreciated and welcomed. Snide comments born of ignorance are not.
(http://img13.potato.com/loc118/th_2a3_gear_geometry.jpg) (http://img13.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc118&image=2a3_gear_geometry.jpg)
All the best,
Crumpp
-
feh.
doesn't matter anyway. everyone knows the best aircraft to be inspired by the 190 were the Fury/Sea Fury/Tempest II.
(http://www.furballunderground.com/Guest/Furball/IMG_9771_1.jpg)(http://www.furballunderground.com/Guest/Furball/IMG_9771_2.jpg)
thank you mr. tank.
-
With these splices, both front and rear spars are continuous from tip to tip, like those on the Focke-Wulf 190
Is it solid? Reads to me like "with these splices" meaning that with the spliced sections it is one continous spar.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
doesn't matter anyway. everyone knows the best aircraft to be inspired by the 190 were the Fury/Sea Fury/Tempest II.
The Fury is the ultimate prop fighter IMHO. It should be called the "Spit-Wulf" or the "Focke-Fire"!
:lol
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Name some WWII fighters then that had solid main wingspars. The reason it was not done was the difficulty in repairing damaged aircraft. Not something generally desired in a Military aircraft and a departure for Tank from one of the design concepts of the Focke Wulf 190.
All the best,
Crumpp
All Yakovlev fighters !
If I understand correctly your affirmation about spar I can name at least one aircraft builder who used such a design in the 30's : Dewoitine.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
The Fury is the ultimate prop fighter IMHO. It should be called the "Spit-Wulf" or the "Focke-Fire"!
I know Kurt Tank is a legendary designer, but what i do find incredible is, the lack of credit given to Sir Sidney Camm as an aircraft designer.
He went from designing Hawker Harts (30's biplanes) to having an input on the Panavia Tornado..
http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/camm.html
-
The wing still had to be replaced as a whole unit just as with the 190.
Only the main spar on the 190 was full length. The rear spar ended at the fuselage.
The Mossie's wing had to be replaced as a whole unit.
-
the lack of credit given to Sir Sidney Camm as an aircraft designer.
I agree. Hopefully history will not marginalize his achievements.
Only the main spar on the 190 was full length.
That is what we are discussing, right?
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I agree. Hopefully history will not marginalize his achievements.
That is what we are discussing, right?
All the best,
Crumpp
I dunno , I still don't have understand fully what do you mean.
If you mean monospar , it was used 1st (if I'm not mistaken) in 1922 by Dewoitine.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the main spar on the 190 was full length.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is what we are discussing, right?
Was just adding that both wing spars of Zeke were full length.
-
Didn't the Bearcat have break-away wingtips?
-
Hi Crump, the original data you posted is I think, company calculated, that is why I compared it with USN calculated data. V34 is a prototype
And this is why I did not include the prototype V34.
(http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/Performance+estimates.jpg)
Neil.
-
Originally posted by straffo
All Yakovlev fighters !
But Yaks had wooden/composite spars, also the skin was wooden (except some varinats with metal skin). That would explain it, wooden units are more difficult to maintain strenght if they are multi-piece ones.
BTW, isn't the notes regarding aircraft performance specs relate to BRITISH aircraft only ? The US might have had different tolerances, and in any case, Neil doesn't have a problem showing prototype Spitfires trials or calculations in his comparison articles, why US, German, Russian prototypes/calculations are treated differently? Are these less reliable than British ones..? I mean, just because British production quality tolerance was different than in other countries, it can't be applied as a general rule without knowing the tolerances elsewhere.
-
Hi Crump, the original data you posted is I think, company calculated, that is why I compared it with USN calculated data. V34 is a prototype
Yes it is would you like other FW-190A9 data?
I have 7 or 8 different flight tested reports from different machines. For example FW-190A9 flight test's run from 580kph to 595 kph at 1.65ata.
Focke Wulf calculations generally run about 1-3% below flight tested performance and are conservative. Please post your proof these are calculations? Every curve you have ever looked at, Neil from Focke Wulf you say the EXACT same claim.....calculations. I have too many full flight tested reports to buy into that one so I have to call BS. Have you seen a full calculation report from Focke Wulf on the Antons?
I have several of those too and if you can recieve 500 pages and I felt like scanning that many I could send it to you. The curves are easy to spot as drag is generally a conservative figure.
Those are not calculations for the FW190A curves but rather transcribed from flight tested data. While no flight was performed for that specific report, the curves of the FW-190A8 and FW-190A9 come from flight test's.
This report is a comparision of Focke Wulf fighter performance for the Ta-152 program. Some of the Ta-152 curves are calculated for comparision. Focke Wulf will generally conduct a flight test report. That data will show up in other reports as well rather than clutter up a testing scheduale for routine performance data that has already been confirmed.
What has probably been confusing you in your search for FW190A performance is the correct corrections. Focke Wulf had a similar error problem as the Grumman did on the Bearcat. One of V34's flight testing regimes was done to find fix the calibration error from earlier data.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
I dunno why this 'calculations' thing keeps popping out. And it always does in the same context, if something is desired to be dismissed, it's a good excuse, and rarely proved.
I think 'too good for my taste' is the real problem with these data, and it doesn't matter if it's flight test either, you can always find excuses : the Russian and Finnish 109G datasets are coming from flight tests curves were also 'dismissed as abberant', simply because the data they are good results. If the 'calculations' excuse doesn't work, dismiss them because 'they are abberant'. It's very simple to show this way whatever you want with a few tests, if you are showing only the ones that you like and dismiss all the rest. Curiously, wheter it's a calculation or not is never an issue with poor/low results.
There are no such reservations when it comes to british calculations either, see the calculated MkXIV specs, but you can't see a 3-paragraph whining how these figures were unlikely to be reached by serial production planes, and with how much reserve they must be treated.
So when I see someone talk about 'calculations', I take it as an excuse. Companies wouldn't do calculations if they would not spare them money with similiar results as prototypes and tests. Companies do not forward overly optimistic specs to Air Ministries , only to make their poorer performing planes not reaching those specs of their own turned down on delivery, and loose profit. The company is interested to be conservative in it's specifications, it can't have trouble from that.
-
Hi Furball,
>everyone knows the best aircraft to be inspired by the 190 were the Fury/Sea Fury/Tempest II.
Hm, the Tempest line certainly consisted of first-class fighters, but I don't believe the Fw 190 influence was all that big there :-) The cowl design perhaps might be inspired by the Focke-Wulf, but the rest of the aircraft seems to be quite different, and apparently evolved in stages from the rather conservative Typhoon construction to the state-of-art design of the Sea Fury. Not that I'm a Hawker expert! :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by Furball
I know Kurt Tank is a legendary designer, but what i do find incredible is, the lack of credit given to Sir Sidney Camm as an aircraft designer.
He went from designing Hawker Harts (30's biplanes) to having an input on the Panavia Tornado..
http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/camm.html
yes sidney camm. he also devised the camm shaft, a knobbed metallic instrument utilized by the queen's subjects for some form of erotic pleasure. I believe he was knighted for that. brilliant man.
-
Was just adding that both wing spars of Zeke were full length.
I think you need to reread the design analysis, Milo. It does not say the spars were solid spars.
It says:
With these splices, both front and rear spars are continuous from tip to tip, like those on the Focke-Wulf 190 (analyzed in AVIATION for October, 1944)
http://rwebs.net/avhistory/history/Zeke32.htm#Wing
They were spliced unlike the FW-190.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
And so was the 190s Crumpp or have you forgotten what you wrote?.
The main wing spar on the FW-190 extends throughout 3/4's of the entire wing, not just the center section.
The main spar runs from outboard the gun bays thru the center. It is one solid piece and not bolted together.
It is more like 1/2 than 3/4. The joint being at the outer kink.
One can see where the spices are on the drawings of the Zeke. They are outboard of the outer cannons between ribs 10 and 11. LOL, at a simular place as on the 190, with respect to the guns. :eek: Rib 10 is at the inner end of the aileron.
If the wing was damaged, the whole wing had to be replaced, just like on the 190.
So nice of you to repost the link I gave. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hm, the Tempest line certainly consisted of first-class fighters, but I don't believe the Fw 190 influence was all that big there :-) The cowl design perhaps might be inspired by the Focke-Wulf, but the rest of the aircraft seems to be quite different, and apparently evolved in stages from the rather conservative Typhoon construction to the state-of-art design of the Sea Fury. Not that I'm a Hawker expert! :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
The cowl design was most certainly "inspired" by the Fw 190. Quote from http://www.hawkertempest.se/markii.htm
The Tempest Mk II had been intended to be powered by the 2,250hp Sabre Mk IVA in-line liquid cooled engine. Sir Sydney Camm however felt that the radial engined Tempest Mk II would offer the ultimate in performance for the Typhoon/Tempest line and, as a result, considerable effort was made to improve the efficiency of the 2,210 hp Centaurus air cooled radial engine.
During the test flight of the engine in a Tornado prototype (HG641) the engine and oil temperatures remained constantly near the maximum allowable and there was a high amount of carbon monoxide gas in the cockpit.
The RAF technicians, studying a captured Fw 190, found that the Germans had solved the problem of cooling a closely cowled radial engine. They used an annular oil cooler which was built into the leading edge of the cowling and cooled by an engine driven fan. The engine exhaust system avoided the use of a collector ring and gases were discharged through individual exhaust pipes mounted in front of exit louvres on each side of the fuselage. Hawker engineers redesigned the Tempest II with a modified Centaurus IV, which incorporated much of the German technology.
If you look at photos of the Tempest II, it does look alot like a Fw 190A cowling was just bolted straight onto the nose!(also looks alot like the La-7 cowling, hmmm...)
-
Read what I wrote Milo:
The main spar runs from outboard the gun bays thru the center. It is one solid piece and not bolted together.
The FW-190 main wingspar is solid and does not have splices.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by justin_g
If you look at photos of the Tempest II, it does look alot like a Fw 190A cowling was just bolted straight onto the nose!(also looks alot like the La-7 cowling, hmmm...)
I am not certain, but I think Oleg Maddox said it too the Russian designers certainly looked at the FW 190's cowling when designing the radial Lavockhin nose. There's nothing wrong in that, the FW 190 had probably the finest cowling design at the time for mounting a radial engine neatly, why reinvent the wheel...? That doesn't say others were just 1:1 copies of it, but they took some of the good ideas.
-
Some say that the LA cowling was the finest of them all. Wonder who copied who though? Were the radial Lala's not on the test bed before Barbarossa? Was it the same idea? Really don't have a clue.
Anyway, designs from somebody else are always an inspiration as Widewing put it.
Then from Ack-Ack:
"Why is it so hard to believe that the FW190 influenced some of the design of the Bearcat?"
I find it rather logical, if it fits in time, which there has been some debait about. You can also see some claims that the F8F was very much based on the 190 rather than a normal step forward of the Grumman lines.
What I put my money on is that after the Grumman guys looked at the 190 they knew what they were already doing was a right thing ;)
-
Wonder who copied who though?
Angus...think for just a second.
When was the FW190 first flown operationally?
When did the first radial engine Lavochkin test prototype appear? April 1942.
Kind of hard for the Lavochkin to be inspirational when it was not around.
What I put my money on is that after the Grumman guys looked at the 190 they knew what they were already doing was a right thing
Certainly, they had almost the exact same goals in mind that Kurt Tank's design team. Smallest, lightest fighter around the most powerful motor available. Make the whole package easy to maintain in rough primative conditions.
Focke Wulf came up with some excellent ideas on how to get there. Some are still in use today. The modular cockpit and weapons array is pretty much industry standard now.
Grumman was smart to incorporate lessons learned from any aircraft designer to achieve the designs stated goals.
Why folks have such a hard time thinking they did not use good ideas from Focke Wulf is beyond me.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Hi Crump
Yes it is would you like other FW-190A9 data?
Yes please, I will see what I can do for you in return.
Neil.
-
As far as inspiration, they would have gone over many of the US and other European radial designs from the 30s, and would have sought to improve upon what they liked. The same process anybody took in any a/c design, bomber, fighter, whatever. They all stole, borrowed and modified, sometimes they had to change designs because of economic factors, or any other host of things that would crop up.
Remember too that many designs on both sides of the atlantic were followed to prototype, only to to terminated.
Choices in engines and armament tended to be "off the shelf", what can we put in our design next month? they didnt have the time to design totally new engines and guns, they sometimes did of course. If you were a US fighter designer for example, in 1940, you had two main choices, Allison inline, or PW radial, for armament, .30 or .50 caliber. Unless you wanted to seriously delay your design by coming up with a totally new engine and or gun. That could take a year or better.
Some "flukey" designs include the Mosquito, made of wood only because thats the material that the government would fund for it, and as it turned out, was the material that gave it its reduced weight and excellent performance, Fw190, if for only that it got its performance from the BMW radial, that was the only one they could get for it, P-51B/D, British design, built in the USA, and then later, a British engine, Hellcat was built in response to the Zero, and so it went.
All the odd twists and turns some of them took, and any of them might never have seen combat had their governments kyboshed them...could have been P-43D vs He118 vs Wirblewind Mk. V who knows.
-
Jeff Quill flew a prototype of some Bristol fighter (can't find the book in all my heap...) which looked almost exactly like the F4F.
The project was scrapped.
Will have a look if I can find it If I have the type, it can probably be googled.
-
I'd have to bet that if Lavochkin was knocking off anyone's cowlings, it was Polikarpov's
I-180 from 1939
(http://www.studenten.net/customasp/axl/image/foto/12-2-2004-9-51-polikarpov_i-180_(9)_parked.jpg)
La-5fn
(http://www.studenten.net/customasp/axl/image/foto/10-8-2004-9-43-lavochkin_la-5fn_on_flight-line.jpeg)
that first image wont link, copy & past the URL if you want to see it, metacharacters in the URL i guess, whatta nightmare...
-
With the exception of exhaust placement I see very little in common with the FW190 too.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Hi Debonair,
>I'd have to bet that if Lavochkin was knocking off anyone's cowlings, it was Polikarpov's I-180 from 1939
Belyakov/Marmain in their MiG book mention that the MiG OKB developed a cowling for a radial-engined derivative of the MiG-1/3 series, which after overcoming a lot of difficulties with the first attempt resulted in a very promising second attempt, but then was turned over to the Lavochkin OKB.
That would make sense as the MiG-1/3 series seems to have been a handful with regard to handling, while the LaGG-3 was at least fair. On the other hand, I have dim recollections of Tilt disagreeing with this version of Lavochkin history the last time around :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I wonder how much/if any of the 190a was derived from the BF109v21..anyone know anything about that?
109v21 with BMW801 engine
(http://afwing.com/images/me109/build/v21-2.jpg)
-
I wonder how much/if any of the 190a
I don't think very much of the BF-109V21 influenced the FW-190.
Focke Wulf and Mtt are about as different as two companies can be. The inner workings of the two companies are pretty interesting and the differences are dramatic.
In fact I think a book has been published of the cartoons the Focke Wulf employees used to make of each other and company events.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Debonair
I wonder how much/if any of the 190a was derived from the BF109v21..anyone know anything about that?
109v21 with BMW801 engine
A drawing (Sk.Nr13-190) exists of the 190V1 dated 28-9-38. The V1 flew in the June of 1939 while the 109V21 was only 95% complete in late March 1939 and did not fly til Sept 1939.
The V21 was powered by a P&W Twin Wasp. The first flight powered by a 801 was in Sept 1940.
-
So, German designs, running paralell for years, does not influence each other, while the U.S. fall flat for the 190 and dart out with an uber naval fighter from the inspiration in a whiff????
p.s. edit was for spelling
-
funny, the spelling correction didn't work...:confused:
-
So, German designs, running paralell for years, does not influence each other,
Yep.
I would not say they were parallel, however, more like competition.
while the U.S. fall flat for the 190 and dart out with an uber naval fighter from the inspiration in a whiff????
Major exaggeration but if that is how you want to view it.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
hehe, I knew this would tickle ;)
I am well aware of the pre-war competition between German aero companies. Heinkel, Junkers, Messerchmitt and FW, as well as others. And the Politics were dirty.
However, I hope you saw my point.
-
However, I hope you saw my point.
Actually no I did not see any point to your post.
EXCEPT to troll.
You obviously have some knowledge:
I am well aware of the pre-war competition between German aero companies. Heinkel, Junkers, Messerchmitt and FW, as well as others. And the Politics were dirty.
So your post is pretty pointless unless your objective was just to be a jerk.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
LMAO...have you ever noticed no matter what the original topic these threads turn into a weeny waving contest between the same 4-6 individuals that lasts for pages and pages.
-
same 4-6 individuals
Maybe only 4-6 individuals have the knowledge to participate. There are plenty of lurkers who just read the threads to learn.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
The Ki-43 Oscar inspired the 109v21 with BMW801 engine. :D
-
The Ki-43 Oscar inspired the 109v21 with BMW801 engine.
I thought it inspired by this famous fighter:
(http://img126.potato.com/loc51/th_51ad1_snoopy.jpg)
All the best,
Crumpp
-
On a side note...
If you ever played CFS1 or 2, someone made a 3D model with FM of Snoopy's doghouse with Snoopy on top. It was a riot. My son played the sim for hours using that thing.
-
If you ever played CFS1 or 2, someone made a 3D model with FM of Snoopy's doghouse with Snoopy on top. It was a riot. My son played the sim for hours using that thing.
LOL,
Warbirds has Snoopy's Doghouse and a paperairplane.
The paperairplane is overmodeled though.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
I never have seen a picture of a radial engined Bf-109 derivative. Does anyone have more info on the v21? Performance, what kind of engine exactly, flight characteristics? Why didn't they continue with it?
In my ragged library I have a rather mediocre 109 book which nevertheless stated that there have been plans for a BMW 801 engined 109. Anybody know if anything came of that? Where there prototypes?
I am one of the lurkers btw and I love to learn, I hate the flamefests. Be nice please.
Edit: I read the posts a bit too quickly and I see now that the V21 eventually got a 801 engine. Still I'd like to know more about it.
-
I always found the Grumman F6F/F8F strange.
In the 2 years in which the Hellcat saw action is was barely modified. Only 2 models (day fighters if you don't count the N) with only minor improvements. They didn't even install a paddle blade prop on it like was done with the F4U and P47 and stayed with the old 3 blades.
I guess the reason was that the F6F was pretty darn good to begin with (for its time) and Grumman were too busy mass producing them. It was apparently good enough to last till the F8F was to be ready.
Bozon
-
Bozon,
The F6F had a paddle blade prop, it just wasn't a 4 blade type. The 6501A-0 13" blade type was the original F6F-3 design. The F4U-1 started with the 14" toothpick type then moved to the same design as the F6F in late 1943 early 1944.
The F4U-4 used the same exact blade design except with 4 blades.
-
Hi Hogenbar,
>I never have seen a picture of a radial engined Bf-109 derivative. Does anyone have more info on the v21? Performance, what kind of engine exactly, flight characteristics? Why didn't they continue with it?
The V21 was Werk-Nr. 1770, D-IFKW, powered by a Pratt & Whitney Twin Wasp SCG. It looks like an Emil derivative in having rectangular wingtips, but the horizontal tail lacked the Emil's braces. The tail wheel was almost completely retractable. Wing span and gear track width probably were slightly increased due to the wider fuselage. The radial engine had a standard cowl with a ring of cowl flaps for cooling. The aircraft had a three-bladed propeller and no spinner. The oil cooler looked a bit like the standard Messerschmitt oil coolers, but of course there were no underwing radiators.
Despite the obvious similarity to a Me 109, the aircraft actually looks more like a Zero on a strict diet ;-)
It appears the project was not continued with because the prototype had poor handling characteristics, but I'd like to learn more about this project, too :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Wow. what a cool 109 derivitive. Do we know if it had slatted wings?
As to the F180F. Of course they were influenced. So what?
-
It is more like 1/2 than 3/4. The joint being at the outer kink.
You get that from your drawings?
All the best,
Crumpp
-
The Bf109V21
...
(http://donji2.web.infoseek.co.jp/factory/g909/109x02.jpg)
Yuck!
-
I read a blurb once that said the v21 was in response to the FW190, not the other way around. Messerschmitt wanted to see if the radical "new" engine setup would improve performance at all, and was disappointed and wholeheartedly washed his hands of it, leaving the radial idea to Focke Wulf.
-
Took you long enough to see those words. :rolleyes:
Prove other wise Crumpp.
You do have trouble with the English language, don't you?
your words:
The main wing spar on the FW-190 extends throughout 3/4's of the entire wing, not just the center section.
The main spar runs from outboard the gun bays thru the center. It is one solid piece and not bolted together.
The CL of the outer gun is less than 1/2 way from the fuselage CL. 3/4 of the span would be at the middle hinge of the aileron which is well outboard of the gun. :rolleyes: see Fw drawings Sk.Nr.13-190V5g-7B1.3 and Sk.Nr.13-190Wb1-51.
Since you have trouble with words, here is a drawing, worth a 1000 words, of where the 'splice' was on the Zeke. Nice and large so you won't miss the position.
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/A6M-sparsplice-1.jpg )
Please notice the position, outboard of the wing guns.
-
Took you long enough to see those words.
Maybe I just waited until I could check it out again.
One solid piece. Splices are NOT one solid piece.
The FW-190 spar runs much farther than I thought when I checked it out again. It does not end nor is it spliced at the outer weapon bay. The weapon barrel simply passes through a reinforced hole in the spare.
It runs the length of the wing and has nothing in common with the Zeke.
Maybe you can find some other nitpick to harp on and turn out to be wrong?
(http://img14.potato.com/loc264/th_5de21_main_wing_spar.jpg) (http://img14.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc264&image=5de21_main_wing_spar.jpg)
All the best,
Crumpp
-
I see you have as much trouble with technical drawings as you do with English.
-
The wing in the shop is much harder to post on the BBS Milo.
Since you were wrong about the Zeke's wingspar being like the FW190, do you have any others?
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Since you were wrong about the Zeke's wingspar being like the FW190
I know you have trouble with English. It was not me but the person who wrote the article that said "both front and rear spars are continuous from tip to tip, like those on the Focke-Wulf 190". And you are writing a book.
You were the one that made the initial statement that:
The main wing spar on the FW-190 extends throughout 3/4's of the entire wing.... The main spar runs from outboard the gun bays
From that statement, the Zekes main spar is no different from the 190s. I pointed out that the gun bay is less than 1/2 and that 3/4 is well past the gun bay. More of your 'problem'.
So you screwed up and won't admit that you did. Keep weasling.
Do you know what a camera is? And, how to use one.
Better yet, post section drawings for positions 6, 7 and 8. You do know what section drawings are?
-
From that statement, the Zekes main spar is no different from the 190s. I pointed out that the gun bay is less than 1/2 and that 3/4 is well past the gun bay. More of your 'problem'.
Ok My last reply to you troll.
I am not being stubborn Milo. You are just plain wrong. Once again in your typical modus operandi you appear to make some usually insignificant point which is only made in the hopes of discrediting me.
SPLIT BY IT'S VERY NATURE OF BEING "SPLIT" IS NOT ONE PIECE.
Go get some therapy Milo, please.
Why don't you go find a Focke Wulf wing to photograph? Or section drawing to post. You might learn something.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
My understanding is that the "free exchange" of information within technical circles was quite high in the 1930's. Not just in aviation but in other areas as well (nuclear physics and armored vehicle design to name two).....so you had a strong predisposition to "borrow" and canibalize to create your "original" idea....I think you can look at alot of planes and see similarities in design going back to the racing planes of the 30's,
As for the 190/F8F comparision the critical element is that the F8F was light years ahead of the 190 in every aspect of design and performance. The 190 was an outstanding plane in the true "interceptor" sense. It was however severely lacking in many areas (as were all its contemporaries). The F8f was truely revolutionary in that it combined the performance of a true interceptor with the handling characteristics of a true "dog fighter". Basically you have a tempest/190D melded with a spit V. This is plane that set time to alt records (10,000 ft) that stood well into the jest age....comparing the F8F to the 190 is like comparing strip steak to kobe beef....just not logical....the 190 was a great 1930's design (1938)....but the F8 might be the second best prop plane ever designed (F7F)....
-
That's is a nice opinion Humble.
Problem is that piston engine fighters had a performance cap based simply on the physics of having a propeller.
The FW-190 is one of the designs considered to be at that pinacle of piston engine development.
While the Bearcat is a newer design it was not capable of bending the natural laws of physics.
Nor is it in the same catagory IMHO as the Sea Fury, which dumped considerable power into tiny gains that were the nature of post war piston engine aircraft development.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
I think its a lot of hoopla about a plane that never saw action. There were a lot of very high end prop fighters in 1945, Spit F.21, Tempest, Ta152, P-51H, F4U-4, La-9...they were all very impressive, and were reaching the pinnacle of what you could get from a prop fighter, and yes the F8F as well.
-
I think its a lot of hoopla about a plane that never saw action. There were a lot of very high end prop fighters in 1945, Spit F.21, Tempest, Ta152, P-51H, F4U-4, La-9...they were all very impressive, and were reaching the pinnacle of what you could get from a prop fighter, and yes the F8F as well.
Yep, well put.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Sorry Crumpp and Squire, the Bearcat would pwn any and all piston engined prop fighters with change to spare.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
That's is a nice opinion Humble.
Problem is that piston engine fighters had a performance cap based simply on the physics of having a propeller.
The FW-190 is one of the designs considered to be at that pinacle of piston engine development.
While the Bearcat is a newer design it was not capable of bending the natural laws of physics.
Nor is it in the same catagory IMHO as the Sea Fury, which dumped considerable power into tiny gains that were the nature of post war piston engine aircraft development.
All the best,
Crumpp
I'm simply viewing it from the perspective of envelope of performance. When the 190-A3 entered service it literally changed the course of plane development in England. The spit IX was cobbled togeather and rushed into service in order to avoid the total decimation of the RAF over france....no further accolade needs to be given to the 190.....few planes have ever had such a tangible effect on another nations war planning.....not even the 262. However, the 190 was simply a significant leap in "total E" combined with a reasonable total handling capability.....as the 190 changed no later model came close to the raw handling of the A3.
A similiar pattern can be seen in the spitty....its increase in speed is offset by higher and higher wingloading.....same for the 109 series. The F8 (and F7) provided a previously unreachable combination of power and handing not found in any other plane of the era. The fact that both planes were not only carrier capable but also had significant tactical flexibility is extraordinary. I give the nod to the F7F because it had a much greater total capability then the F8 (or any piston engined plane of WW2). Basically it could by itself have dominated any theater of the war at the tactical level....
As for the F8 the fact that it held speed to altitude records that held up over 20 years into the jet age tells you what a feat of engineering it was. The original comparision of the 190 to F8 is nor more accurate then comparing the F8 to the 262...looking at the chronological "step ladder" the 109 set the 1st rung, the spitty clearly surpassed it, the 190 eclipsed the spitty and the pony superseded the 190....the US never even bothered to deploy the F7/F8 but they supersed the pony in many ways...and the 262 opened the door to the jet as a operationally deployable weapon.
If you look at the british the Tempest/Seafury have the same basic limitations as the later spitties. Simply not offering the tactical flexibility required to function as a multirole airframe....same basic issue the russians and germans had. Basically the US had the only truely functional airforce in the world as of 1944....which is why they could have "won" the airwar vs any other aviation force in the world. The most telling quote of WW2 aviation was a Q and A regarding the mustang....when asked what aspect of the mustangs performace made it so special the reply was nothing....except the fact that it could do it over Berlin. This is the fundemental issue so often missing from debates here about the relative merits of various airframes. War is all about killing folks....and weapons that acomplish that task better in more ways make the differance. The AK-47 isnt the "best" combat rifle in the world because its a better weapon....the M-16 (and many other weapons shoot circles around it)....but you can drag it thru a swamp and it'll still work to spec....it was a quantum leap in the deployment of basic firepower to a marginally provisioned/trained force.
One of the Clint Eastood "spagetti westerns (sp?) summed it all up....when a man with a rifle meets a man with a pistol the man with the pistol dies (unless your Clint of course). The same can be said about two airforces meeting....when the airforce with the 400 mile combat range plane meets the airforce with the 1000 combat range plane....the 400 mile airforce dies....
-
I'm simply viewing it from the perspective of envelope of performance.
No your not. If you were then your view would be somewhat different.
-
Great theory, except you forgot the part where Strategic Bombing didn't win the war in 3 years of trying, and we invaded France, and the tactical air forces fought supporting the armies just as they did on the Eastern Front. The LW was finished when we drove AFVs onto the runways and over ran the factories.
Spits and Typhoons (and P-47s and P-38s) didnt need to go to Berlin on a 6 hour mission to get into the fight. The fight was in Normandy. Then France. Then Holland. Then Germany. Try reading somebody elses military histories than just the 8th AF.
The real a/c worth mentioning are the F4F, F6F, P-40, P-38, and P47 in US service. P-51 when they hastily "cobbled" a Merlin engine on it and it became usefull.
-
as the 190 changed no later model came close to the raw handling of the A3.
Really?? Based on what humble? Your scientific opinion?
Can you prove it?
I would say learn some aeronautical sciences before opening your mouth.
Effects of CG position, additional power, and lowering drag profile might be some good places to start.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Squire
Great theory, except you forgot the part where Strategic Bombing didn't win the war in 3 years of trying, and we invaded France, and the tactical air forces fought supporting the armies just as they did on the Eastern Front. The LW was finished when we drove AFVs onto the runways and over ran the factories.
Spits and Typhoons (and P-47s and P-38s) didnt need to go to Berlin on a 6 hour mission to get into the fight. The fight was in Normandy. Then France. Then Holland. Then Germany. Try reading somebody elses military histories than just the 8th AF.
The real a/c worth mentioning are the F4F, F6F, P-40, P-38, and P47 in US service. P-51 when they hastily "cobbled" a Merlin engine on it and it became usefull.
I wasnt discussing strategic bombing, if you view various planes as what they are....weapons systems you then can look at the utilization potential. The greatest issue faced by an airforce is its ability to project its power. Range is a basic element of that equation. Had the 109 had longer legs the BoB would have turned out quite differently. Air power is incabable of winning anything but a nuclear conflict....in the end the guy on the ground will decide things....but if one guy on the ground has air and the other guy doesnt then airpower (tactical) will tip the balance. Now if your airpower can strike at will from the safety of your rear area and/or remain on stations longer you will eventually win the air battle. If your plane has a greater range of standardized mission capabilities you will have a greater impact. So a P-51 (or P-38 or P-47) is a much more dominant weapons platform then a 190 (or 109, la-7, tiffie, tempest etc). Not beacuse its a "better" plane....but because its a more tactically capable plane. So from a mission planning aspect the 51 is far superior.
You can look at the same concept by looking at a US "heavy" armoured division. Obviously the sherman is an "inferior" tank to the Panther (and probably the PXIVH....but the US heavy divisions chewed up everything they faced....why....because they were structured in a way that enabled them to deploy and attrite everything they faced.
This isnt a 8th airforce thing or even US history thing.....its simply the science of killing.....
-
If your plane has a greater range of standardized mission capabilities you will have a greater impact. So a P-51 (or P-38 or P-47) is a much more dominant weapons platform then a 190 (or 109, la-7, tiffie, tempest etc). Not beacuse its a "better" plane....but because its a more tactically capable plane. So from a mission planning aspect the 51 is far superior.
Wow. Can I save this humble? This is sig worthy material.
:rofl
:aok
-
This is what happens when you just look at one Air Force and basically ignore everybody else.
Ya, I know the movie "Memphis Belle" wasn't about the RAF/RCAF, LW, or the VVS, but they fought in WW2 nonetheless.
The basic mistake you keep making is assuming all Air Forces had similar goals, tactics, and doctrines. They didn't.
The LW and the VVS were both used as arms of their land armies, providing tactical air support while also conducting fighter operations such as interception and escort. It served them well, and they were arguably the best at it.
The RAF/RCAF had a dual role. Strategic bombing (by night) of Germany to end the war by industrial attrition, and to disrupt the economy and infrastructure of the country. Secondly, it had a tactical role in providing tac air for the armies in the field, especially from 44-45 in NW Europe. It also provided Air Defence for the UK of course.
Neither of the above requires a long range escort fighter like the P-51. Neither sought to get one, because there was no operational need for it.
The USAAF had at first, a duel strategy. Strat bombing of Germany by day (for precision), and to provide fighter support for the armies. Only after the fall 1943 missions did the 8th AF decide to go to a "escort all the way" strategy, adding a 3rd requirement, long range escort.
You can only argue that long range escort to all of Germany (which the P-47 could not provide), was a "war winning mission" if you subscribe to the notion that Strat Bombing was the #1 priority of the Allies. Well, it wasn't. If it worked we would not have had to invade France on D-Day.
The USAAF followed a policy of strat bombing, fine and dandy, but do not assume that because thats what they did that it was the best use of resources, or the most effective way to win the war. It was not. We got to Berlin by way of the land armies. So did the Russians.
The Germans conquered most of Europe without any need for a long range escort, and they certainly didnt need one to defend Germany, either.
Im not taking away anything the 8th AF did in WW2, or the P-51, they had their role in attriting German air power, but I scoff at the posts of how it won WW2 all by itself, while I can tell the poster has a fixation with it, and silly claims of the USAAF having the only true air force blah blah blah. Stop flag waving and do some serious research.
-
Great theory, except you forgot the part where Strategic Bombing didn't win the war in 3 years of trying, and we invaded France, and the tactical air forces fought supporting the armies just as they did on the Eastern Front. The LW was finished when we drove AFVs onto the runways and over ran the factories.
The Luftwaffe was finished before that. It was, in part, the reason we were able to drive our AFVs where we did WHEN we did.
Spits and Typhoons (and P-47s and P-38s) didnt need to go to Berlin on a 6 hour mission to get into the fight. The fight was in Normandy. Then France. Then Holland. Then Germany. Try reading somebody elses military histories than just the 8th AF.
A don’t think anyone denies that these planes didn’t have to go to Berlin to get into the fight. But they would have had to go to Germany to get at the heart of the Luftwaffe. It was only when free-ranging escort fighters began appearing over the heart of Germany was it that the Luftwaffe then had no safe haven.
The real a/c worth mentioning are the F4F, F6F, P-40, P-38, and P47 in US service. P-51 when they hastily "cobbled" a Merlin engine on it and it became usefull.
Why bring up the F4F, F6F, and P-40 in the context of this discussion? The P-38 and P-47 dealt blows to the Luftwaffe, no doubt. But they didn’t do it in any substantial way OVER Germany until late in the war. It was the P-51 that took the fight to the Luftwaffe over Germany itself – where their otherwise safe airfields, training areas, and repair depots were.
And I was unaware the P-51 was useless until it was mated with the Merlin. The Allison powered P-51 wasn’t worthless in the recce-role over France, nor as a fighter/bomber over Italy, or in the Far East. And while the Merlin got the Mustang to high altitudes, it was a clean form and lots of gas that got it to Germany.
This is what happens when you just look at one Air Force and basically ignore everybody else.
Ya, I know the movie "Memphis Belle" wasn't about the RAF/RCAF, LW, or the VVS, but they fought in WW2 nonetheless.
The basic mistake you keep making is assuming all Air Forces had similar goals, tactics, and doctrines. They didn't.
The air forces set strategy based on what they were capable of.
The LW and the VVS were both used as arms of their land armies, providing tactical air support while also conducting fighter operations such as interception and escort. It served them well, and they were arguably the best at it.
Sure, they were good at it. But being good at it led the Germans to believe it was sufficient to defend what was conquered, and Germany itself. Early success led to short-sightedness, grand failures, and the loss of the air-war. I’ll get to that in a moment.
The RAF/RCAF had a dual role. Strategic bombing (by night) of Germany to end the war by industrial attrition, and to disrupt the economy and infrastructure of the country. Secondly, it had a tactical role in providing tac air for the armies in the field, especially from 44-45 in NW Europe. It also provided Air Defence for the UK of course.
Neither of the above requires a long range escort fighter like the P-51. Neither sought to get one, because there was no operational need for it.
I’ve seen this argued before – that the RAF didn’t need a long-range escort. I think that’s an absurd argument. Of course it needed a long range escort. Bomber Command tried daylight bombing and suffered heavy losses to fighters. The failure of the RAF to recognize the need for a long-range escort doesn’t diminish the fact that they needed one.
The USAAF had at first, a duel strategy. Strat bombing of Germany by day (for precision), and to provide fighter support for the armies. Only after the fall 1943 missions did the 8th AF decide to go to a "escort all the way" strategy, adding a 3rd requirement, long range escort.
The decision to “escort all they way” didn’t come as a revelation in the Fall of 1943. It was recognized earlier. The US escorted as far as it could when it was possible to do so.
You can only argue that long range escort to all of Germany (which the P-47 could not provide), was a "war winning mission" if you subscribe to the notion that Strat Bombing was the #1 priority of the Allies. Well, it wasn't. If it worked we would not have had to invade France on D-Day.
Strategic Bombing in and of itself wasn’t intended to win the war alone, it was intended to damage Germany’s war capability so that the time it took to win was contracted. In that respect, it worked.
Additionally, the strategic bombing campaign greatly contracted the area over which the principal portion of the Jagdwaffe operated. In doing so, there were scarcely any German planes to oppose the D-Day landings.
The USAAF followed a policy of strat bombing, fine and dandy, but do not assume that because thats what they did that it was the best use of resources, or the most effective way to win the war. It was not. We got to Berlin by way of the land armies. So did the Russians.
It certainly helped win the war. And it was the major impetus to the final destruction of the Luftwaffe.
Again, the strategic bombing campaign contracted the area over which the principal portion of the Jagdwaffe operated. In doing so, German air opposition to allied land operations was reduced – and in many cases, non-existent.
The Russians certainly benefited as well. Germany greatly increased fighter production in response, in major part, to the strategic bombing campaign. Most of those fighters went to the west. They shifted a great number of fighter pilots from east to west. The principal portion of the Luftwaffe’s fighters and pilots were assigned to the west and defense of the Reich – mainly the defense of the Reich. Germany’s best pilots were assigned to the defense of Germany, the next best to France, and the worst remained on the eastern front. The Russians should be (and I’m sure they are) thankful for the strategic bombing campaign for the declining quality of German pilots they faced.
The Germans conquered most of Europe without any need for a long range escort, and they certainly didnt need one to defend Germany, either.
Back to the point I made above. The early, quick German victories led to a fatal short-sightedness. By achieving such quick, one-sided victories, they felt whatever strategies they came up with was sufficient also to defend their newly conquered lands, and Germany itself.
They may not have needed and escort fighter to achieve these victories, but having one surely would have helped. By not having one, it contributed to the misunderstanding by the Germans of the implications and vulnerabilities of the escort fighter.
A truly long range fighter would have been helpful during the BoB. It would have been helpful on the eastern front. And it certainly would have been helpful in defending Germany. As it was, by failing to develop their own really long range fighter they failed to recognize the danger of the Mustang escort. They also failed to recognize its vulnerabilities. They failed to realize that by pulling their defense fighters back to the interior of Germany, they were letting the escorts into Germany. Had they understood the escort fighter and its vulnerabilities, they would have engaged the escorts much further out causing the escorts to jettison their tanks which would have prevented many of them from reaching their heart of Germany. As it happened, the Jagdwaffe was engaging escorts over the bomber’s targets, and were being attacked by the escorts on their own airfields.
Germany most definitely needed, if not a true escort fighter, a truly long range fighter. Had they had one, they may have come up with, and been able incorporate, a better strategy of dealing with US escort fighters. And had they been dead-set on pulling their fighters back into Germany, they would have had a better capability to develop a depth of defense strategy.
Im not taking away anything the 8th AF did in WW2, or the P-51, they had their role in attriting German air power, but I scoff at the posts of how it won WW2 all by itself, while I can tell the poster has a fixation with it, and silly claims of the USAAF having the only true air force blah blah blah. Stop flag waving and do some serious research.
The best people to ask about the effect of the air efforts against Germany isn’t the allies, it’s the Germans.
The strategic bombing campaign didn’t win the war alone, but many high ranking Germans felt it could have with time. Additionally, many high ranking Germans give credit to the Mustang as the decisive blow to the Luftwaffe.
Lt. General Werner Junk said the American escort fighter was of great effectiveness right from the beginning and caused major losses to the German fighter force. Lt. General Karl Koller stated the American escort fighter was something new and fatal to Germany. Another German stated the Mustang escort fighter was the “new, final and decisive medium” to the success of the bombing campaign and destruction of the Luftwaffe. That’s not small credit.
No, the strategic bombing campaign didn’t win the war. But it caused it to be won sooner. And the Mustang escort fighter put an outstanding fighter over the heart of Germany which was critical to cutting the heart out of the Luftwaffe.
BTW, back to the F8F. Neat plane.
-
Please start a new thread. This had nothing to do with this one.
-
Crumpp's right.
-
Squire....
I certainly didnt mean to imply that the P-51 was in any way responsible for winning the war. In the end conflict in that era was primarily dependent on the strength of the land based army (except in the pac). What I am saying is that the weapons platform dictates tactical limitations that are fairly inflexible. If you have limited combat endurance you need to plan accordingly. So in 1944 the luftwaffe had significant limitations placed on it due to the "short legs" of its defensive fighters. I've read numerous accounts by luftwaffe aces of finally engaging allied bomber streams when they were flying almost on fumes....never underestimate the benifit of supply....be it ammo or fuel. Even the P-47 F6F P38 etc had significant range. They also had significant flexibility built in with regard to the tactical role. The P-47 went from being a high altitude interceptor to ground attack plane simply by cutting different orders. The VVS luftwaffe and RAF really didnt have a similiar capability in any primary weapons platform of the war.
You could modify a plane (ala the 190F/G) but you couldnt task a single unit to multiple tactical roles interchangably. The best example is that Gabroski went down to a bent prop....here's the #1 US ace of the ETO train busting....that versitility isnt demonstrated elsewhere to any large degree.
If you look at modern aviation the strength of the USAF is the flexibility it employs. The US was the 1st nation to pioneer the concept of a true "strike fighter" and has remained at the forfront....even while highly specialized planes have evlolved the F-15,F-14 & F-16,F-18 combos remain the true workhorses and provide tremendous flexibility. The Tornado would be a modern equivelent to the typhoon and it did a tremendous job (at a high cost in lives) in a very demanding role....but it has no where near the total capability of the F-15....so in a conflict the F-15 would dominate the Tornado based on that enhanced mission profile capability.
-
The basic mistake you keep making is assuming all Air Forces had similar goals, tactics, and doctrines. They didn't.
You couldnt be more wrong. In the end the goal of any armed service is to close with engage and totally destroy its adversary. There is no middle ground in armed conflict. You have only the victor and the dead. Now the tactics will vary and are determined by two primary variables....the mission task....and the tools available. The best example I can give you is the concept of mechanized war utilized by the americans in the ETO....they had the worst tank deployed in the ETO but the best deployment.
Now if you look at the air war....well without the tool you couldnt have let the hounds lose....no long range escort and Jimmy couldnt have envisioned the tactics. So where the british elected to change tactics....the americans elected to change tools....then rethought the altered tactic in light of the new tool. THis left the germans in a quandry. If they marshalled there fighters for attacks on the bomber stream they had to wait (that damm range issue again)....and they got hit taking off. If they assembled early....they couldnt stay up (where are those aireal tankers) so they got hit landing. The germans simply didnt have the ability to control there own airspace beacuae the mustang had greater combat endurance OVER GERMANY than the 109 did. So you had the germans flying landing and take off caps for there own fighters tasked with hitting the bombers. As for the russians, they were fighting a similiar foe...basically to sluggers going toe to toe....the germans were simply outslaughtered. Had the russians faced the allies they'd have had much greater problems since it would be a slugger vs a boxer.....different fight all together.
-
Well the RAF's FC's goal was exclusevily (initially) the defence of their homeland.
The LW role was best described as close support and fighter superiority.
The RAF's BC's goal was beating the enemy into the ground with heavy night bombing.
They don't all sound the same to me.
Anyway - a far way from the F8F.....
-
Yes and No....
I certainly didnt mean to hijack the thread. The F8F certainly gained from the design teams experience with the 190....but it wasnt a copy by any means....it was a quantum leap in capabilities.
As for your points, the RAF never expected to be defending England proper to any significant degree....they expected to be fighting on the continent. Yes the German airforce was designed as an extension of the ground forces....in 1936....Dunkirk and Bob showed them how incapable they were of contucting real offensive operations...yet they did nothing. The only airforce that made any real strides in true capability was the US. Which started the war as arguably the most inferior major aviation power in the world and had the dominant aviation capability at wars end....persicely because it continously ramped up capability to the point it didnt even field any of its late war planes. In tbat sense it all ties in to the original post.
-
it was a quantum leap in capabilities.
Hardly. It was an improvement in some areas, the same in some, and not as good in others.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Hardly. It was an improvement in some areas, the same in some, and not as good in others.
All the best,
Crumpp
It was a major improvement across the board vs the 190....
A-8
Engine: One 2,100-hp BMW 801D-2 radial piston engine
Weight: Empty 6,989 lbs., Max Takeoff 10,802 lbs.
Wing Span: 34ft. 5.5in.
Length: 29ft. 1.5in.
Height: 13ft. 0in.
Performance:
Maximum Speed: 408 mph
Ceiling: 37,400 ft.
Range: 500 miles
Armament:
Two 7.92-mm (0.31-inch) machine guns in nose.
Up to four 20-mm MG 151 guns in wings.
Wide range of underwing and under-fuselage bombs, guns and rockets.
Specifications (F8F-1B):
Engine: 2,100hp Pratt & Whitney R-2800-34W Double Wasp 18-cylinder radial piston engine
Weight: Empty 7,070 lbs., Max Takeoff 12,947 lbs.
Wing Span: 35ft. 10in.
Length: 28ft. 3in.
Height: 13ft. 10in.
Performance:
Maximum Speed at 19,700ft: 421mph
Cruising Speed: 163mph
Initial Climb Rate: 4570 feet per minute
Ceiling: 38,700ft
Range: 1,105 miles
Armament:
Four 20mm cannon
Hardpoints for two 1,000lb bombs, or four 127mm (0.5in) rockets, or two 150-gal fuel tanks
Now if you look at the 190-D (which I consider a significantly reworked design......
190-D
SPECIFICATIONS
Span: 34 ft. 5 1/3 in.
Length: 33 ft. 5 1/4 in.
Height: 11 ft. 1/4 in.
Weight: 10,670 lbs. combat-loaded
Armament: Two 20mm MG 151 cannons in wings and two 13mm MG 131 machine guns in nose
Engine: Junkers Jumo 213 of 2,240 hp. with methanol-water injection
PERFORMANCE
Maximum speed: 426 mph.
Cruising speed: 280 mph.
Range: 520 miles
Service Ceiling: 40,000 ft.
*(3,300 ft/mim climb)
You basically have a plane with better climb ceiling and handling....but its fundementally a 190. The F8 is functionally close to double superior vs the 190D. Its got significantly greater climb (and I'm guessing acceleration) comparable top speed and significantly greater handling at both high and low speeds with twice the range and significantly better firepower.
The Ta-152(H-1) is obviously superior in high alt perfromance and has better range then the D-9 (~750 miles) but you cant really call the 152 a 190. It also would have a siginificantly harder time dealing with the F8F at more normal combat altitudes. At the lower altitudes more realistic for tactical combat the 152 would be at a serious disadvantage vs the F8F.
So when you look at the history....you have a 1938 design reworked to its limit vs a plane designed in 1944 that has basically twice the range far superior climb and handling with a much harder hitting gun package. The D-9 is a better match but still would have little chance vs the F8. The Ta-152 is a significant leap as a high alt interceptor....but it doesnt really shine till above normal comabt alts for WW2....
So from my point of view the F8 id double superior to the A-8, functionally double superior to the D-9 and within normal operational conditions superior to the Ta-152 (but would be unable to perform high alt escort vs the 152)....I dont see how/where the 190 (any flavor) is superior in any way to the F8.
-
(http://www.ubi.com/resources/binary/126/31704.jpg)
-
Try the FW-190A9. It is closest to the Bearcat.
The Dora has much better performance as the numbers tell.
Other than that you put out a significant amount of opinion with little fact.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
From Humble:
"As for your points, the RAF never expected to be defending England proper to any significant degree....they expected to be fighting on the continent"
WHAT?
Dowding's Fighter Command was ABSOLUTELY first and foremost about defending the home islands.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Try the FW-190A9. It is closest to the Bearcat.
The Dora has much better performance as the numbers tell.
Other than that you put out a significant amount of opinion with little fact.
All the best,
Crumpp
The F8 outclimbs out accelerates and out turns the Dora....the dora has a nominal speed advantage up high....but not enough to really make a differance. Truthfully all I see here is opinion with little or no "fact". All I'm voicing is historical consensus with very little actual opinion of my own.
-
Originally posted by Angus
From Humble:
"As for your points, the RAF never expected to be defending England proper to any significant degree....they expected to be fighting on the continent"
WHAT?
Dowding's Fighter Command was ABSOLUTELY first and foremost about defending the home islands.
England had no real perception that that a war would be fought on over England before hostilities commenced. Wars had been fought "over there" for centuries with no one since William actually invading England. The British historically fought their war on the other guys turf and had no different expectations....as did the germans. Both sides were geared toward a land war in Europe and both sides really viewed the air war from a WW1 perspective...the big difference being the germans had a true combined arms concept of war that caught the Allies by suprise. Niether however really had aviation as an equal to their army or navy as a true force projector in its own right. A good example would be the way we viewed our naval land units (Marines) vs the British or Kriegsmarine....(or Japanese)....who saw them as ancillary troops....we won a whole war with them. So our US Army Aircorps evolved into a truely capable stand alone enitity with far great capabilities then any of its counterparts. None of this is "opinion" its simple historical fact.
-
I'm voicing is historical consensus with very little actual opinion of my own.
What you are saying is contrary to the opinion of those who have worked and flown both aircraft.
It is YOUR opinion based on popular myth.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
"England had no real perception that that a war would be fought on over England before hostilities commenced. "
What do you base that on?
I think that the bombing raids of ww1 and the bombing of the Spanish Civil War had the british totally thinking that the next war could be fought over thier cities.
I have never seen someone make such a claim.
-
^
^
Heh. Yes, naturally - the gas mask my Mum was issued with was in preparation for her being sent to the trenches, at the age of five.
And it wasn't a bomb shelter at the end of the garden - Granddad had designed a mighty howitzer to shell Berlin, and was going to install it there.
-
From Humble:
"England had no real perception that that a war would be fought on over England before hostilities commenced."
Utter nonsense Humble. They were preparing before the war started. Read up on Dowding's job please.
Does the home chain radar system not ring a bell?
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
What you are saying is contrary to the opinion of those who have worked and flown both aircraft.
It is YOUR opinion based on popular myth.
All the best,
Crumpp
Where is the opinion of those that have flown both published, or do we have to "call Garber" and talk to someone?
Better power loading
Better wing loading
Much better drag coefficient
Carrier capable
Sounds like a walk-away for the F8F. The only advantage the Dora has a some speed. Other than that, F8F seems superior in just about every measurable category.
-
(http://hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/190d9speed.gif)
Crumpp,
Are these the performance numbers you are speaking of?
These numbers do not compare with the F8F-1 or -2. Which 190 are you refering to?
-
I reread the thread.
(http://img19.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc37&image=bb4_a9_vs_Bearcat.JPG)
What year was the A9 produced? Are these the best 190A series numbers you have? I would like to revisit our 190A vrs F4U-1 discussion in another thread.
-
What year was the A9 produced?
From September 1944 until the end. Engine upgrades to the BMW801TS on FW-190A8 airframes began in the summer 1944 with all FW-190A airframes coming from the factory being able to accept any 801 Series engine in July '44.
These numbers do not compare with the F8F-1
They compare with F8F-1 very well with the Dora having a level speed advantage. The F8F-2 is a post war aircraft and does have much better performance.
I will not compare homemade charts however. It's absolutely silly and very open to manipulation. Published data of guarenteed production specs is the most accurate.
Are these the best 190A series numbers you have?
I would F4UDOA, but I already called HTC and told them I was not giving up any of the "goodies" I have dug out of 3 years of research into the Focke Wulf without a contribution to the Foundation.
I would be glad to do this on the discussion group boards with branded documents.
Are you a member of AAW? If you are I will get you in the discussion group. You still have my email address?
All the best,
Crumpp
-
The F8F was built and was already in service during the late months of WW2 right?
It just didn't see any action.
And it's a navalized aircraft, which always comes as a cost.
What do you think the 190A9 would have performed like with the gadgets added that are needed for carrier ops?
BTW, how does the F8F rack up against the post war Sea Fury????
Basically, that 1945-1947 line would be the Ultimate F4U, the Sea Fury, The Seafire 47 and the F8F. Would be interesting to compare!
-
I woldn't trust the wings on the bearcat to fight against a high performance fighter with a high structural strengh.
-
F8F-1 charts.
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/F8F-1+a.jpg
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/F8F-1+b.jpg
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/F8F-1+c.jpg
Neil.
-
Here lets take a look at what YOU are going to do....
Compare aircraft performance charts developed by warring powers during the 1940's.
How dumb is that??
Well lets see. All aircraft have position error corrections because your airspeed indicator does not measure actual ground speed and is subject to compressibility effects of the atmosphere.
Varying magnitudes of the errors described here are present within the pitot-static system of any aircraft Full details of a particular system must, therefore, be obtained from Aircraft Flight Manuals.
http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/PSSI.htm
Here are two position error corrections done by two different Allied powers on the FW-190. None of the German insturmentation is different. Same airspeed indicator, same pitot tube completely different corrections!!
(http://img14.potato.com/loc214/th_56580_EB_104correction.jpg) (http://img14.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc214&image=56580_EB_104correction.jpg)
(http://img131.potato.com/loc200/th_b0ad2_FW190A3f.jpg) (http://img131.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc200&image=b0ad2_FW190A3f.jpg)
And are completely different from Focke Wulfs own position correction.
Why?
Standard atmosphere was not standard! It was not standard in the United States, The United Kingdom, Germany, or anywhere in the world. The United States was actualling running three "standard" atmospheric models during the 1940's. Which one did Grumman use?
Every student of aerodynamics and flight mechanics is introduced to an atmosphere table, which allows one to determine the temperature, pressure, and density at any altitude. If you don't happen to have such a table handy, you may want to look at a sample atmosphere table in US units or SI units. The equations used are those adopted 15 October 1976 by the United States Committee on Extension to the Standard Atmosphere (COESA), representing 29 U.S. scientific and engineering organizations. The values selected in 1976 are slight modifications of those adopted in 1962. The equations and parameters used are documented in a book entitled U.S. Standard Atmosphere, 1976 published by the U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. A summary of the definition of the 1976 atmosphere is on another page.
http://www.pdas.com/atmos.htm
http://nis-www.lanl.gov/~stanleym/dissertation/node19.html
Add in the fact that aircraft performance is actually a percentage range of values:
(http://img120.potato.com/loc226/th_34610_RAF_test_flight_standards.jpg) (http://img120.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc226&image=34610_RAF_test_flight_standards.jpg)
(http://img129.potato.com/loc274/th_4a5bc_Focke_Wulf_tolerences.jpg) (http://img129.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc274&image=4a5bc_Focke_Wulf_tolerences.jpg)
It becomes a really silly endevour to compare aircraft that are less than 10 mph difference especially when that information comes from differing charts prepared in different countries.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Well 3% on top speed could be some humble 12 mph...so....
And 10% on climb however some 350 fpm (which is more than he loss of clipping a Spitfire BTW)
But anyway, I rather agree. Within this margins it's in a certain "ballpark"
Although.....WW2 fighter performance didn't exactly jump on in quantum leaps.....until the 262 came around....;)
-
But anyway, I rather agree. Within this margins it's in a certain "ballpark"
Exactly, within the realm of reality, these aircraft are equals.
Only would some gamer think....Ew Ew Ew...says here my aircraft does 3 mph faster than yours!!!
:huh
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Crummp,
Are you saying that the Germans measured the performance of there aircraft in IAS not TAS or that there is a natural variance in performance depending on the aircraft tested?
I'm curious about the A-9, was it a production aircraft? I was looking for the empty weight so I could check wingloading and power loading and I found this statement regarding the A-9
German factories continued to produce FW-190s as best they could, but the A-8 turned out to be the last production Anton. The "FW-190A-9" was an A-8 with a BMW-801F engine with 1,490 kW (2,000 HP). Some sources also claim the A-9 was fitted with an armored wing leading edge for service as a "Rammjaeger", knocking down bombers by ramming them. Home defense squadrons had been encouraged to use this tactic late in the war with earlier FW-190 subvariants, though it appears few pilots did so. The "FW-190A-10", was a Jabo subvariant that was to feature an improved BMW-801TS or BMW-801TH engine. Neither of these subvariants got out of prototype evaluation.
Do you have the empty weight of this A/C?
-
German factories continued to produce FW-190s as best they could, but the A-8 turned out to be the last production Anton. The "FW-190A-9" was an A-8 with a BMW-801F engine with 1,490 kW (2,000 HP). Some sources also claim the A-9 was fitted with an armored wing leading edge for service as a "Rammjaeger", knocking down bombers by ramming them. Home defense squadrons had been encouraged to use this tactic late in the war with earlier FW-190 subvariants, though it appears few pilots did so. The "FW-190A-10", was a Jabo subvariant that was to feature an improved BMW-801TS or BMW-801TH engine. Neither of these subvariants got out of prototype evaluation.
That is a bunch of nonsense, F4UDOA. Don't listen to that site, it is wrong on many levels.
The FW-190A9 was produced from Sept. 44 until the end. The FW-190A10 was the last variant and did not see production. It would have changed the FW-190A from electrical systems to hydraulic.
Here is the real story of the "Rammjager". Sonderkommando Elbe flew any aircraft available, including 109's and they flew stripped versions with all armour removed or any excess equipment. Experienced pilots were turned away as they were needed for the continuation of the war.
The battle plan called for the stripped-down fighters to climb to altitudes above the normal operating levels of the B-17s and B-24s and heavily armed Mustangs and Thunderbolts.
The good pilots were ruled out; they were needed alive. Those not deemed brave enough to perform the maneuver were also turned away.
“With our new Messerschmitt Me-262 jet fighters coming on-line, the day of the propeller-driven fighter is over. I propose that we gather our Messerschmitt Me 109 fighters and in one massive attack, ram the American bombers in midair.
http://afmuseum.com/friends/journal/frj_251.html
Empty weight of the FW-190A9 is about 3080Kg's give or take a few.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Are you saying that the Germans measured the performance of there aircraft in IAS not TAS or that there is a natural variance in performance depending on the aircraft tested?
There are corrected and uncorrected graphs floating around the net, yes.
I am saying that everyone did not use the same numbers when they made their corrections. Means your not measuring things on the same slide rule which induces an error.
Combine that with natural variance in performance and it becomes real easy to present erroneous conclusions. The best "performance test" for speed, would be tactical trials. Even those can be lead to wrong conclusions if the type tested has obvious mechanical difficulties due to unfamiliarity with the type. They will always give "at least" performance though.
These factors add up to the fact that making conclusion based on such small differences is impossible. That is why you do not see such things in credible publications. It's junk science to try and compare within such narrow tolerances.
If the difference is large enough of course it does not matter and general conclusions can be drawn.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Well here is another version.
Next and last production series of the A version aircraft was the Fw 190A-9. Previously, it was thought this plane would have been powered by a 1765 kW (2400 hp) BMW 801 F engine. But the BMW factory had not started production of these engines in time and, as a replacement, the 1470 kW (2000 hp) BMW 801 S engine was used with a more efficient, 14 blade fan. These engines were delivered as a power unit BMW 801 TS because of their need for a more efficient radiator and bigger oil tank mounted side by side. Both were in the form of a ring ahead of the engine under an armor cover with thickness increased from 6 to 10 mm. Large area, three bladed wooden propeller with constant speed mechanism should have been used as a standard, but for unknown reasons the majority of the A-9 planes (as opposed to F-9) had the metal VDM 9-12176 A propellers, as used in the previous version. One difference in the airframe between A-9 and A-8 model was a larger cockpit canopy, adapted from the Fw 190F-8 version. A few planes got tail sections with an enlarged tail as provided for Ta 152 fighters. Armament and Rustsatz kits were the same as in the A-8 version, but in many cases, on the pilot's request external part of the wing mounted MG 151/20 E cannons were removed.
Production of the plane started in the end of autumn 1944 and continued parallel to A-8 version. Monthly output depended on limited deliveries of BMW 801 TS engines. Also developed was a project for a highly modified Fw 190A-10 fighter powered by a BMW 801 F engine, but it was not completed because of the end of the war.
Edited for post overlap.
-
Appears maybe just a handful of A-9s were made. Certainly not any kind of major production model.
(http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/a9.jpg)
From:
THE HISTORY OF GERMAN AVIATION
KURT TANK: FOCKE-WULF'S DESIGNER AND TEST PILOT
by Wolfgang Wagner (book proofed by Kurt Tank himself)
-
That is an excellent book, Skychimp. It was written in 1980 however. It does not say anything about FW-190A9 production other than they could not tell exactly how many were produced.
You should get a copy of the C-amts or pick up Rodieke's excellent FW-190 book. It has much more up to date information.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Well here is another version.
Much better information.
The metal propeller was faster in the air and easier to produce. The laminate wood props were "high" demand items though because they only lowered top speed about 1.5% but greatly increased climb and turn. Starting procedures and the operaton of the VDM clock were different.
All FW-190A's could use the "blown canopy", wide chord wooden prop, and Lufterrad 039 was the preferred fan making exact variant determination without opening the cowling difficult.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/a-9.htm
http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/a-9a.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bijg301.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biijg54.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biijg301.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biijg26.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bijg26.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bijg2.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bijg54.html
There is more in there, you can hunt around to find them if you like.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Empty weight of the FW-190A9 is about 3080Kg's give or take a few.
How can the A-9 have an empty weight of 3080kg, which is 410kg lighter than the A-8? The engine in the A-9 added 35kg.
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/Fw190_01a.jpg )
-
Crump.
How dumb is that??
Not quite as dumb as spending all day sitting at the PC arguing.
Note on the British position error curve.
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/Position+error.jpg
Neil.
-
So after all the Allies knew how to measure speed?
Noooooo wayyyy. :D
-
How can the A-9 have an empty weight of 3080kg, which is 410kg lighter than the A-8? The engine in the A-9 added 35kg.
Because that is not the empty weight, Milo. It is the service weight and corresponds to the Empty weight-actual as Grumman defines it.
FW-190A8
Leergewicht - 3050Kg = empty weight
Rüstgewicht - 3438kg = service weight
Fluggegewicht - 4272Kg = Combat take off weight
mit Zusatzkraftstoffbehälter im rumpf - 4392Kg
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Note on the British position error curve.
Which has nothing to do with point I made Neil or the USAAF curve.
It does agree with British data and is within another range of percentage error. You bring up the "agreement" clause quite a bit.
You do know that data say within 3% is "good agreement" in aeronautics?
So after all the Allies knew how to measure speed?
What an idiotic statement, Angus. Of course they could measure airspeed and the data they collected is just fine for comparing British curves to British curves. Problem is comparing them to other nations as the scale is different as can be seen in the US Position Error correction.
So when you compare a German curve, US Curve, and British Curve, whose scale do you use and how do you convert?
That is of irregardless of normal percentage variation.
Bottom line...It is silly to compare when the aircraft as close in performance. Your conclusions are just as likely to be wrong.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
So when you compare a German curve, US Curve, and British Curve, whose scale do you use and how do you convert?
Using the rule of three should be a god start.
-
What was removed from the listed empty weight of the A-8 to get the weight down to the 3050kg you say it was. Even removing the weight of accessories, it still leaves 94kg un-accounted for.
What is included in service weight.
-
What is included in service weight.
You got the load sheet, right and all the answers? Your the expert. Go dig it out or visit your local archives.
Here is one hint for some of it:
"Ah Tower, am I cleared to land?"
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Why am I not surprised by your reply Crumpp.
Maybe others would like to know how you arrived at the weights you state since they are in conflict with what a Fw data sheet says.
-
Why am I not surprised by your reply Crumpp.
You shouldn't be. What is that saying, you reap what you sow.
The information does not conflict at all with what is included in Technical Description 284 Milo. That report does not include the leergewicht (empty weight) only the rüstgewicht (service weight).
The information comes from these sheets.
(http://img132.potato.com/loc257/th_4cb01_weight_title.jpg) (http://img132.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc257&image=4cb01_weight_title.jpg)
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
What you are saying is contrary to the opinion of those who have worked and flown both aircraft.
It is YOUR opinion based on popular myth.
All the best,
Crumpp
Please provide me with a reference to back up this statement. I am unaware of anyone anywhere who has ever commented on the 190 (any flavor) being an equal....let alone superior plane to the F8F. From my perspective your the one working on myth. The 190 was a fine airplane....certainly the premier combat fighter in the world when it hit frontline service. As always things adjust. The spitIX proved a suitable counter to the point it went from a stopgap to a mainstay. As a general rule the performance arguements of 190-D9/109K vs P-51D are valid. The pony is a far superior plane not because its "better" but because its a far far superior weapon from a mission capability standpoint.
Now the F8F was/is viewed as clearly superior to the P51 by a tremendous number of pilots who flew both....including the P-51 in combat. Now many test pilots actually considered the F7F as superior to the F8F (but thats a different story).
So my "position" is based on a comparision of the F8F vs P-51 in which the F8F is consistantly viewed as a superior plane.
-
Originally posted by JAWS2003
I woldn't trust the wings on the bearcat to fight against a high performance fighter with a high structural strengh.
The F8F was a carrier plane, an awful lot tougher design standard?
-
Originally posted by Angus
From Humble:
"As for your points, the RAF never expected to be defending England proper to any significant degree....they expected to be fighting on the continent"
WHAT?
Dowding's Fighter Command was ABSOLUTELY first and foremost about defending the home islands.
I ment in the BoB sense....the English expected to be defending England in France:)....obviously WW1 dirigible attacks fortold some level of bombing....but the germans didnt have any real long range bombing capability. So unless you the ability to forcast the blitzkrieg thru France you expected the fight to be focused in France....
-
So my "position" is based on a comparision of the F8F vs P-51 in which the F8F is consistantly viewed as a superior plane.
http://www.truthpizza.org/logic/badlogic.htm
-
The F8F was a carrier plane, an awful lot tougher design standard?
For landing gear sure.
-
Dear Crumpp
would you please to post whole Laderplan, please
-
would you please to post whole Laderplan, please
I can't do it George, not anymore. It takes time money and effort to collect these things. I have them for ALL the Focke Wulf 190's and Ta-152 A/C plus literally rooms of documentation on the design. All I want is some token tax-deductible non-profit support for the Foundation:
http://www.white1foundation.org/
Of which I am on the Board of Directors. At one time I would have been glad to do it and have presented them with numerous reports already which they have done nothing in the past 2 years about. Why waste my time?
They don't put any priority on realistically modeling the aircraft for their game, why should I?
I enjoy the discussion board more than the game, although it is hardly the best source of history or science because of the game factor.
Back to the F8F vs. FW-190.
Lets examine the design philosophy of the Bearcat:
1. Smallest, lightest fighter, with the most powerful engine available. Nobody else came up with that one! That is pretty much the design premise behind most European fighters in WWII.
Smaller? Larger wingspan by 1 foot than the FW-190 but around a 1 foot shorter fuselage. Pretty much the same. Much larger cowling and intake due to the PW R2800-34W motor simply being larger than the BMW801.
Did the PW R2800-34 represent new engine technology?
It was used in many older designs.
The engines were water injected versions of the Pratt & Whitney "Double Wasp" first tested on the XC-46B.
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/cargo/c4/c46g.htm
Power production is pretty comparable with BMW801S series motors so I just don't see hoopla about the F8F. The PW R2800 does have 300 cu inches more displacement and produces more power equal to that volume using water injection. I will say it was smart decision on Grumman’s part not to go with a turbocharger using 1945 technology. That more than anything swings power production efficiency by a fraction in favor of the PW R2800. But then BMW did purposely take the hit to save development time associated with torsional dampening that plagued the R-2800’s development. Both engines are in the 2100hp range at take off power.
http://www.enginehistory.org/NoShortDays/TV.pdf
Weight is in the same ballpark as the FW-190. The Bearcat does have a much larger wing area. This is why sustained turn/climb are in the Bearcat favors.
Aerodynamics:
Although Skychimps claim of lower Cd is correct for the Bearcat, that is not what is used for absolute drag comparison. That is used to compare drag efficiency and not the absolute drag.
Although the CDp is the best value for comparing the drag efficiency of one airplane to another the term Equivalent Flat Plate area (f.) is useful for comparing the absolute parasite drag of two aircraft. Equivalent flat plate area is defined as:
http://142.26.194.131/aerodynamics1/Drag/Page4.html
The Bearcat does have a lower Cd, which means it is more efficient at reducing drag production. However, it simply has much more area and a simple flat plat comparison will immediately show drag to be in the FW-190's favor. Most of that R2800 power gets eaten up overcoming the drag. This is why the tested curves are so close.
And of course this drag effects all performance parameters requiring the Bearcat to have more power to perform the same work as a lower drag aircraft.
Wing design:
The Bearcat has "laminar flow" wings. We know today that "laminar flow" using propeller engine speeds was not very feasible except in the lab.
Sounds good though to say we have "laminar flow wing" in 1945 and as the both allied and axis wind tunnel tests it did contribute to the drag production efficiency seen in the Cd of the Bearcat.
Construction has been covered already.
Armament:
Well 4 x .50cals is just not anywhere in the same league as 4 x 20mm's and 2 x 13mm MG's. FW-190 has very comparable performance with a lot more punch.
Design growth potential:
Here the Bearcat soars ahead, IMHO. The FW-190 series was restricted by it's CG limits. Although the Dora/Ta-152 series had once again expanded the growth potential of the design the Bearcat was in its infancy as a design. Barring any major design flaws by the Grumman team should be the hands down winner.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by humble
The F8F was a carrier plane, an awful lot tougher design standard?
The wings on the Bearcat were too weak. Pilots lost their life pulling out of dive bombing runs. The proble was never fixed properlly.
-
Originally posted by JAWS2003
The wings on the Bearcat were too weak. Pilots lost their life pulling out of dive bombing runs. The proble was never fixed properlly.
If I recall correctly they were supose to break in some circumstancies.
-
yes but usually only one would break. They tried to fix it with explosive charges late after the war. After some accidents they dropped the idea and ordered pilots to fly at much lower G forces.
-
yes but usually only one would break. They tried to fix it with explosive charges late after the war. After some accidents they dropped the idea and ordered pilots to fly at much lower G forces.
I think this is discussed at the JFC.
Any idea what the G limits were on the Bearcat? The FW-190 was limited to 8G's, then 6 G's or 5.5 when loaded with bombs. Depending on the variant.
Which is not bad considering the P51B was limited to 6 G's and the P51D was restricted to 4 G's.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
I found this test pilot's testimony quite interesting:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_199808/ai_n8826530 (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_199808/ai_n8826530)
At some point the Bearcat was limited to 4 G's!
-
Crumpp,
The P-51D was resticted to 8G's at 8000LBS. The Bearcat was restricted to 6+ G's while over 10,000LBS. That works out to about 7.5G's at combat weight for both.
The dive restriction for both A/C is approximately 500MPH IAS at 10,000FT which is almost 600MPH TAS.
Jaws,
Trust me when I say this. Nobody was ever told to "take it easy in an F8F".
The breakaway wing tips were a hedge against compressability, that is all.
-
The F8F was 4 x 20mm not 4 x .50....or am I mistaken here?
Crumpp,
I'm in no way saying the F8 was faster than the D9...it wasnt....as we know it was marginally slower. As you stated it did have significantly better performance as a "turn fighter"....while maintaining relative equality as an "E fighter"....given its time to alt world records (that stood into the 60's) it also has (at least at lower alts) a distinct acceleration/climb advantage vs any other prop plane in the world. So in an E fight the F8 would regain E and initiative faster than an opponent (not just the D-9). So given the same relative topend the F8 would by virtue of its other attributes be effectively a double superior plane in a dogfight....as was readily acknowledged by US pilots in Japan where the F8 dominated the pony in many mock dogfights....
As for the divebombing, the F8 was not designed to be a ground attack plane....it was never intended to replace the F6F/F7F/F4U in that role. It was the 1st plane really designed as a CAP plane for carriers. One of its primary desing criteria was climb to 10,000 ft....the goal to be able to scramble a cap over the fleet as quickly as possible. My understanding is that the F7F/F6F would be the "strike" aircraft and the F8F the air superiority escort in the 1945/46 CV airwing with the Skyraider entering service in 1946/47 to provide a true air to ground strike capability....obviously the jet age intervened...but the skyraider served well into the 70's....
-
Just read the article
-
The P-51D was resticted to 8G's at 8000LBS. The Bearcat was restricted to 6+ G's while over 10,000LBS. That works out to about 7.5G's at combat weight for both.
Yep and if you divide the combat weight of the P51 by 64,000 as the load sheet instructs you come out to 6 G's for 10,100lbs.
It was restricted to 4 G's for diving because of the physiological limits of the pilots. Which is the restricting factor in all WWII aircraft. So I was confused.
The FW-190 was also 8 G's and below depending on the loadout as I stated earlier so they are pretty equal.
If you read the article, the Bearcat was restricted to 4 G's at one point and had plenty of difficulties at higher loads.
(http://img15.potato.com/loc265/th_a6525_air_002d_3.jpg) (http://img15.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc265&image=a6525_air_002d_3.jpg)
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Just read the article
Great article BTW. I wonder if the Grumman team would have the same comments flying HTC's FW-190's?
All the best,
Crumpp
-
They would coppy it right the way, make some crappy cargo plane for lend lease to the russians, and then laugh their AO.:lol
-
:rofl
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Why am I not surprised by your reply Crumpp.
Maybe others would like to know how you arrived at the weights you state since they are in conflict with what a Fw data sheet says.
Why don't you call Garber to find out? :D
-
Originally posted by JAWS2003
The wings on the Bearcat were too weak. Pilots lost their life pulling out of dive bombing runs. The proble was never fixed properlly.
The breakaway tips were designed to breakaway if the pilot exceeded the operational G limitations. The tips worked, but getting them to come off simultaneously was a problem. It was corrected in the 251st Bearcat when Grumman changed from countersunk rivets at the breakpoints to brazier head rivets. Explosive bolts were added to ensure simultaneous seperation. In 1949, Bearcats still in service had their wings locally strengthened to eliminate the breakpoints.
-
From the article posted above:
It had an amazing rate of climb of 5,340 feet per minute, which was more than twice the Hellcat's!
This is one of the most confusing aspects of the Bearcats performance. BuAer shows an initial climb rate of 4,570 fpm at combat weight. It seems clear the Bearcat could actually exceed that by a substantial margin.
-
This is one of the most confusing aspects of the Bearcats performance. BuAer shows an initial climb rate of 4,570 fpm at combat weight. It seems clear the Bearcat could actually exceed that by a substantial margin.
Climb rate is very much weight and altitude dependant.
-
The breakaway tips were designed to breakaway if the pilot exceeded the operational G limitations. The tips worked, but getting them to come off simultaneously was a problem. It was corrected in the 251st Bearcat when Grumman changed from countersunk rivets at the breakpoints to brazier head rivets. Explosive bolts were added to ensure simultaneous seperation. In 1949, Bearcats still in service had their wings locally strengthened to eliminate the breakpoints.
Read the article. It explains it all pretty well.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Climb rate is very much weight and altitude dependant.
No way.
Read the article. It explains it all pretty well.
Already read it.
-
From Naval Aviation news, June 1949
(http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/nan1949.jpg)
-
Another interesting read from the same issue:
(http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/f8ffj.jpg)
-
That is a very interesting artical and I think it pretty much puts to bed the origins of the F8F. I was not aware that the F8F ever deployed with the break away wing tips, I thought they scapped that before production. In any event they were removed and the limit was then 7.5 G's.
However,
The FW190 was also flown by Naval combat pilots not just Grumman test pilots. One of those test pilots also has an artical in the Luftwaffa Special addition of Flight Journal (Corkey Meyer also writes for them). His name is Rear Admiral Andy Andrews (Sounds impressive) who happened to be a pilot at Pax River that flew the 190/F6F/F4U test.
In his words the FW190 was not a "Fighter" it was an interceptor based on it's abrupt stall (easy recovery) and extremely high stall speeds and short range. In fact he mentions that the landing speed was twice as high as what he was used to flying. He did comment that it's high speed climb was an advantage.
Granted both articals are the subjective opinions of pilots. But the performance envelope of the 190 (And 109) was always limited by the small wing area and high wing loading. In fact the wing loading and lack of fuel capacity eventually doomed the F8F when the F4U continued service and the AD (Able Dog) began service and remained for so many years. This is supported by the D9 and TA152 designs which could only marginalize the limitations of the Aircraft.
Crummp,
How is the A9 lighter than the A-8? did it carry less fuel or guns? The basic weight of the A5 was 6715LBS and it carried less fuel.
FW190A-9
Empty weight (based on 3050KG)= 6724LBS
Powerloading empty= 3.36
Wing loading= 3.4
F8F-1
Empty Weight= 7077LBS
Power loading= 2.94
WingLoading= 2.9
Both are obviously short range but the 190 seems to be built with the primary focus on downing larger non maneuvering targets based on it's high wing loading.
Based on this what do you think hasn't been modeled in AH?
-
In his words the FW190 was not a "Fighter" it was an interceptor based on it's abrupt stall (easy recovery) and extremely high stall speeds and short range. In fact he mentions that the landing speed was twice as high as what he was used to flying. He did comment that it's high speed climb was an advantage.
I imagine anyone would think that when they flew a Focke Wulf improperly set up. Not only were the ailerons difficult to keep adjusted with trained Luftwaffe crews but that particular aircraft experienced numerous repairs as it was a recovered crash, including wing damage.
Properly adjusted ailerons do not reverse at any point in the aircraft low speed envelope. That is a symptom specifically mentioned in Luftwaffe technical bulletins along with the effect of causing premature stalling in the turns. Adjustment of the ailerons within specifications cures it.
Notice it is not mentioned anywhere in the RAE experience either.
As the Luftwaffe documents mention and the FW-190 pilot relate, the ailerons will vibrate gently just before the stall but not reverse.
(http://img40.potato.com/loc194/th_27f52_turn_doc.jpg) (http://img40.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc194&image=27f52_turn_doc.jpg)
(http://img124.potato.com/loc235/th_2f47c_aleirons.jpg) (http://img124.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc235&image=2f47c_aleirons.jpg)
That is the reason for the large desparity in "opinion" between the Grumman, RAE, and USN pilots. It is a fact that Focke Wulf did not design the FW-190 to be an interceptor. It was designed to be an air superiority fighter.
6715LBS
That is very close to empty weight for the FW-190A5.
FW-190A5
Leergewich - 2960
Rüstgewicht - 3312Kg
Fluggewicht - 4088Kg Focke Wulf flight testing determines there is no difference in aircraft performance with or without wing armament. All fighters now produced with full wing armament.
Schwerpunktslagen x is .50m bis .73m hinter vorderkante wurzelprofile.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
I don't disagree that the Ailerons may have been misaligned. However the stall of the 190 is in line with it's wing loading. The RAE was concerned with the Spitfire for the most part in it's AFDU trials and the 190 had some adavantges for a while against the Spit that it may not have had against the F4U/F6F.
I think the 190 is at a disadvantage in AH because it is faced with an unrealistic mission and only the A/C which can turn and burn and recover e quickly do very well. This is true of most every A/C in AH. The 190 does recover E well but cannot turn well and has a number of non historic advasaries with unusual combinations of performance qualities such as an F6F and a NIK2. I also think that cannon armed A/C have an unrealistic advantage in AH that is somewhat subjective.
BTW,
I really can't decipher the weights you have listed. Are you saying that the empty weight of the A9 is the same as the A5?
-
FW-190A5 empty weight = 2960kg's
FW-190 A9 empty weight = 3080 Kg's
That is with the Wide Chord wooden prop. The power egg is about 30Kg's heavier due to the fact the wooden prop is lighter.
However the stall of the 190 is in line with it's wing loading.
Depends. Focke Wulf puts the stall between 155kph to 175kph depending on the CG.
According to the experienced pilots, the FW-190 did give warning. As the Luftwaffe instructions to their FW-190 pilots relates, the ailerons will vibrate gently before the stall.
Oscar Boesch says you had to be calm and paying attention to feel it.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Crummp,
Do you have a Pilots Handbook for the 190? The stall speeds at weight with the flap setting as well as power on or off should be there.
Do you have the clmax for the 190?
I have most of my data on my other PC which crashed about a year ago. I am retrieving data very slowly. I have a POH for the 190 and some Cl data as well, it is just a question of digging it out.
The Clmax of most WW2 A/C no power is between approx 1.3 and 1.5
You can calculate the stall speed within very close proximity just by knowing the weight and wing area.
For instance the number I have for the A5 are a 1G no power stall at 110MPH at 8,8690bs no flaps.
391 Airdensity SL * 8690LBS / 110MPH^2 * 197SQ FT
3397790 / 2383700
Clmax = 1.42
Where the 190 gets into trouble is that even though it has a good clmax it is does not have the wing area to allow it to grow in Engine size or fuel storage without making the stall speed dangerously high especially for ACM.
The Navy requirements force the AC designers to build in a lower stall speed to be able to land on carriers. So even thought the Clmax of the F8F, F6F, F4U are all comprable to the 190 the carry more weight in fuel ammunition and have a longer range while maintaining lower wing loading.
There is simply no way to overcome the limitations of the airframe which is why the D9 and 152 had increased wing area.
-
F4UDOA,
That is nice and all however changing the CG location changes the stall speed and the CLmax.
However it must be pointed out that you did not determine the stall speed either. You just figured out the CLmax from an assumed stall speed which is actually lower than Focke Wulf says it should be in some documentation. Now I have many lift polars on the design. Almost all of them produce varying results. CL max is condition dependant.
And of course, simple CLmax calculations do not tell the whole story.
3.3.1.2 MINIMUM USEABLE SPEED
The speed corresponding to CLmax may not be a reasonable limit. Any of the other potential limitations from paragraph 3.3.1 may prescribe a minimum useable speed which is higher than the speed corresponding to CLmax. The higher speed may be appropriate due to high sink rate, undesirable motions, flying qualities, or control effectiveness limits. Influence of the separated flow on the empennage may cause instabilities, loss of control, or intolerable buffeting. Any of these factors could present a practical minimum airspeed limit at a lift coefficient less than the CLmax potential of the airplane. In this case, the classic stall is not reached and a minimum useable speed is defined by another factor.
http://flighttest.navair.navy.mil/unrestricted/FTM108/c3.pdf
F4UDOA says:
There is simply no way to overcome the limitations of the airframe which is why the D9 and 152 had increased wing area.
The Dora has the same wing as the Anton and the exact same area. Like the Spitfire or P51 series, it is a good aircraft to study the effects of weight, power, and drag.
Matter of fact the Spitfire Mk IX has the same wing area as the much heavier Spitfire MkXIV:
The tactical differences are caused chiefly by the fact that the Spitfire XIV has an engine of greater capacity and is the heavier aircraft (weighing 8,400 lbs. against 7,480 lbs. of Spitfire IX).
The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Spitfire XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starbord.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14afdu.html
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Do you have a Pilots Handbook for the 190?
I would hope we have a Flugzeug-Handbuch laying around!
We have them for the entire series in multiple versions and translations including many original handbuchs of Luftwaffe issue.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Where the 190 gets into trouble is that even though it has a good clmax it is does not have the wing area to allow it to grow in Engine size or fuel storage without making the stall speed dangerously high especially for ACM.
D-9, D13, D15, all turned better than the Anton and had the same wing.
BTW, The USAAF puts the 2 G stall speed of the FW-190A5 at 160IAS and 140IAS with "manuvering flaps" as determined in their testing.
Turning and stall speed are very much a function of thrust. Using the power off stall characteristics does not paint a truthful picture.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Hehe, this one always tickles me:
"I imagine anyone would think that when they flew a Focke Wulf improperly set up. Not only were the ailerons difficult to keep adjusted with trained Luftwaffe crews but that particular aircraft experienced numerous repairs as it was a recovered crash, including wing damage."
Firstly it seems that the Allies never captured an intack LW aircraft be it 109 or 190.
Secondly, there is the question of whether the LW was always able to keep their aircraft in perfect condition, no matter how big the complications were....
Well, you've got to have something to think about over Xmas ;)
-
Firstly it seems that the Allies never captured an intack LW aircraft be it 109 or 190.
It always amazes me the lack of common sense, sense of cultural superiority, and lack of understanding of the importance of maintenance to aircraft performance exibited by those who want to see foreign testing of captured designs as the absolute word in performance of a type.
Angus, you keep popping in this thread making snide comments like I am trying to make the allies out to be idiots. They were not and niether were their opponents. Facts are each knew very well what they were doing when it came to aircraft design. Much more so than anyone on this board.
The "idiots" are are us on these boards who launch out silly theories from some simple calculations disregarding all the facts or basing assumptions on partial information.
They knew what they were doing. We don't.
Well Angus were where the allies getting their captured aircraft?
Three FW-190's landed by accident in England. Only one of these exhibit problems with with aileron adjustment. The other two tested do not.
All of them exhibit engine difficulties due to the use of allied avgas. However the British were able to compensate somewhat after bench testing one of the captured motors by changing plugs/mixture/timing settings. They got the motor to run smoothly on the bench.
Unfortunately they never tested it in flight on an aircraft.
The US recieved all of their FW-190's as recovered crashes or abandoned wrecks. You think they might have had some technical difficulties without a Luftwaffe or Focke Wulf trained mechanic?
Even the governments conducting these trials did not take them as absolute and only make general recommendations based on the conditions experienced. The detailed technical informatin they include does allow post war analysis of obvious mistakes in detailed maintenance.
You can take opposing technical/operational instructions and compare them with tested aircraft conditions/behaviors. Especially if these are "quirks" of the design and not common in other designs or common to the testing side. If specifics are mentioned like:
1. Focke Wulf aileron adjustment regulations which list specifc adjustment parameters and specific symptoms in flight.
2. Allied reports which include measurements of those specifics parameters and record specific symptoms.
3. Condition of the aircraft note specific repairs conducted by personnel not trained on the type.
4. Allied personnel point out that something appears wrong when compared to other captured aircraft of the same type.
All these are clues. If it looks like duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck. Chances are it's a duck.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Crummp,
That is a nice document on Clmax. I need to sink into that one. However the great thing about calculating the Clamx from the speeds in the POH is that you are using the aircraft in flight with all of those conditions such as CG, AOA, thrust etc taken into account since the A/C is already flying.
BTW, I am not taking the 110MPH number out of the air randomly, I believe that is the listed stall for power off no flaps for the 190.
Question: What is your expectation of the turn radius of the FW190? Do you believe it should be able to turn inside a P-51D or a P-47D?
My point is that turning ability is very limited regardless of the other factors you mentioned within a very narrow framework. You can improve it marginally with superior power loading but high wingloading is hard to overcome unless you are flying a stunt plane. Combine that with the abrupt stall of the 190 (limited stall warning) and the possibility of the 190 out turning very many WW2 fighters is slim. I believe the stregth of the 190 was hit and run, and use it's high speed climb ability to escape and re-engage.
There are many Engineer types on these boards some of which are Luftwaffa supporters like HoHun and Niklas but I hardly think they would disagree in this regard.
As far as maintenance of the aircraft I would imagine even the Americans could figure out how to test a FW190. This was not being done for sport, they wanted to learn tactics to use against the enemy in combat just as the Luftwaffa did with captured allied aircraft. If there were problems with these 190's it could at least be partially attributed to the fact that they were being built by slave labor that was not exactly thrilled about the task they were being assigned.
-
BTW, I am not taking the 110MPH number out of the air randomly, I believe that is the listed stall for power off no flaps for the 190.
It is from one of the allied test's very few of which are fighter variants. In fact only the RAE test of Fabers FW-190A3 is a fighter variant and possibly the VVS test.
However, even the VVS test list's 160kph. Focke Wulf data says anywhere from 95mph to 110mph depending on the aircraft set up.
Do you believe it should be able to turn inside a P-51D or a P-47D?
Depends on speed, altitude, etc...
At low altitude and at low speed is where the FW-190A5 should turn its best. It's not a turn fighter by any means but neither is so unmaneuverable that it cannot quickly reverse.
I tend to agree with the USAAF trials on the P47D4. At altitude above 15,000 feet or speeds above 250 mph the P47D easily wins. To the point that turns over 250mph the P47D using the high activity propeller and water injection has to throttle back. Below 250mph the situation is reversed and the FW-190's ability to hang on its prop allows it to easily outturn the P47D.
FW-190A8 vs P47D40 would yield similar results although the P47D40 superiority at speeds above 250mph would not be as apparent if the P47D40 is not getting a substantial power increase over the P47D4 with water injection. If it does then the results will be the same as the FW-190A5.
If both A/C use "maneuvering" flaps, the P47 will have an advantage with it's slotted flaps and would probably equal the FW-190's turn rate or exceed it for a few seconds.
Similar situation with the Mustang as tested by the USAAF. Low altitude below 250mph the FW-190A5 should be just barely behind the Mustang. Above that the Mustang wins. If both A/C can use "maneuvering" flaps the FW-190's split flaps will win out over the plain flaps of the Mustang.
The FW-190A8 fighter variant should actually turn better than the FW-190A5 as it gains little weight and considerable power over the FW-190A5. The FW-190A8 should equal the Mustang due to its ability to pull a tighter radius than the FW-190A5.
Above 23000 feet the 801's power falls off and FW-190 performance is not very good.
You can improve it marginally with superior power loading but high wingloading is hard to overcome unless you are flying a stunt plane.
Does a stunt plane use different physics? It is not nearly as hard as you think to overcome. In fact wing loading is not very good for determining turning ability except in the most general of terms.
(http://img14.potato.com/loc221/th_7df3f_PaequalsPr.jpg) (http://img14.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc221&image=7df3f_PaequalsPr.jpg)
Increasing thrust reduces radius by allowing a larger angle of bank. Even though the Spitfire gained 1000lbs, a relatively small power increase was more than able to compensate. The FW-190 gained as much power and much less weight than the entire series of Spitfires used during the war.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
If there were problems with these 190's it could at least be partially attributed to the fact that they were being built by slave labor that was not exactly thrilled about the task they were being assigned.
Got to call a BS flag on this one F4UDOA.
While sabotage and poor quality control did effect German production it had little effect on the frontline Geschwaders until the system breakdowns in the last months of the war.
Just like the allies, the aircraft were inspected and had to perform during a check out flight before being accepted by the Luftwaffe for service.
Only in terms of supply would this be an issue, not performance.
Now there is one outstanding exception. Oil formulation appears to have been sabotaged in 1943. The Luftwaffe lost almost 500 801 motors in one year because one man changed the formula causing the oil to breakdown at high tempatures. This cause broken rods. The cause was found, the formula fixed, and the poor guy is listed as "no longer working" in oil production.
Some other instances of "sabotage" did occur. For example an entire Staffle is listed in one Beanstandungen as being "sabotaged" when they cracked cylinders in two motors in a month. The Kommandogerät jets were drilled allowing the motor to run at 1.8ata using Erhöhte Notleistung. In a military service were destruction of state property could carry the death penalty, I would list the mechanics tinkering as "sabotage" too if I was the pilot benefiting. Focke Wulf and BMW conducted a study and determined the practice was dangerous. Geschwaders were ordered to cease the modification.
The chances of a sabotaged motor or aircraft reaching the Geschwaders was pretty remote.
All the best,
Crumpp