General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: mthrockmor on April 11, 2016, 05:47:57 PM
Title: F7F Tigercat
Post by: mthrockmor on April 11, 2016, 05:47:57 PM
Is it fair to say that of all the twin engine birds of WW2 the F7F Tigercat would have smoked them all. (ie Mossy, any P-38, Dina, etc.) And for that matter, smoked most of the single engine birds as well.
I know, we can't add the F7F but...
boo
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: GScholz on April 11, 2016, 06:50:18 PM
Tigercat vs. Hornet would be an interesting "what if".
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: Widewing on April 11, 2016, 10:23:56 PM
Corky Meyer thought it was a monster... So did Captain Fred "Trap" Trapnell, the Navy's chief test pilot and commander of the Naval Air Test Center. Trap flew everything in the US inventory from the 1930s until his retirement.
"For many years Capt. Trapnell was the top test pilot in the Navy; his word was law, both in the Navy and industry flight-test circles. An example of his influence: he came for a three-hour flight evaluation of the first XF6F-3 Hellcat soon after its first flight and he gave the official Navy go-ahead for mass production on that day! The Hellcat eventually passed all of its contractual demonstrations two and a half years later, after more than 8,000 aircraft had delivered to fighting squadrons! Also, to his credit, the Hellcat racked up a record 19 to 1 kill-to-loss ratio the highest recorded in WW2.
When he came to Grumman to conduct the preliminary evaluation of the Panther in early 1948, I was the only Grumman test pilot who had flown the company's first jet fighter. At every opportunity during his three-day evaluation, I tried to pry his opinions out of him; his only responses were grunts, which I interpreted as "Cool it, Corky!" At the end of his evaluation, as we walked out to his F7F-4N Tigercat for his return trip to the Naval Air Test Center, I proudly told him that I was the Tigercat project pilot from 1943-1946. He immediately burst into a diatribe about the Tigercat's many deficiencies: the over-cooling of the engines; a lack of longitudinal stability; excessively high dihedral rolling effect with rudder input; the high, minimum single-engine control speed, etc. He ended his oration with: "If I had been the chief of the Test Center at the time, I would have had you fired!" Each criticism of the Tigercat was absolutely correct. I was devastated and fervently wished that I hadn't gotten out of bed that day.
Just as we reached his Tigercat, I blurted , "If you dislike the Tigercat so much, why do you always fly it?" He explained: "The excess power of its two engines is wonderful for aerobatics; the cockpit planning and the forward visibility in the carrier approach is the best in any fighter ever built; the tricycle landing gear allows much faster pilot checkouts; the roll with the power boost rudder is faster than the ailerons; and it has a greater range than any fighter in inventory." Again, he was absolutely right. As he climbed up the ladder to the cockpit, he turned around, grinned and told me, "It's the best damn fighter I've ever flown." I realized he had thrown the entire test-pilot schoolbook at me with his succinct tirade and that we were probably pretty close in our opinions regarding the handling characteristics that define a really good fighter. I went home happy that night."
There's also plenty of stories of VMF(N) 531 F7F-2Ns beating the living hell out of AAF P-51Ds in the area of Okinawa....
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: bozon on April 12, 2016, 07:03:58 AM
The hornet would have swallowed it whole and released a big burp.
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: GScholz on April 12, 2016, 09:33:56 AM
Yeah, probably. Still think pilot quality would be the determining factor, but the Hornet/Sea Hornet pilot clearly has a performance advantage. It's not that great though. 15 mph in speed and 500 fpm climb...
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: GScholz on April 12, 2016, 11:37:55 AM
Awesome looking and sounding machine!
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: nrshida on April 12, 2016, 12:40:05 PM
Wow De Havilland Hornet. Think I've got a semi. Had a technical article about the construction once. Very interesting approach.
Oh yeah, the Tigercat's alright I suppose (no hijack!).
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: oakranger on April 12, 2016, 02:11:02 PM
Both wonderful looking birds. If anything, wonder how the Westland Whrilwind would end up if WAL worked out the issues and improve the plane. IDK, they could have designed better varients of it.
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: GScholz on April 12, 2016, 02:54:19 PM
To make the Whirlwind a top of the line fighter they would have had to put Merlins in it. They got two Spitfires for the same investment so in the early war years the Whirlwind was a dud having to use old Kestrels.
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: bozon on April 12, 2016, 03:47:27 PM
Yeah, probably. Still think pilot quality would be the determining factor, but the Hornet/Sea Hornet pilot clearly has a performance advantage. It's not that great though. 15 mph in speed and 500 fpm climb...
The hornet would have been the better day fighter. Still, the F7F was an awesome bird, it had radials and it was a Grumman so it can't be bad no matter what. The other Grumman (F8F bearcat) would probably beat both of them as a short range day fighter.
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: Brooke on April 12, 2016, 11:26:52 PM
Another to add to the list for pondering is the Do 335.
The F-82's always puzzled me... Two engines. Two cockpits. Two pilots...
Wouldn't it just be better to have two separate P-51s?
it was a stupid plane. the only good thing about it was that it could use in its constraction the parts from many many scrapped P51s. Otherwise, that is the worst way to build a two seater.
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: nrshida on April 13, 2016, 01:57:50 AM
The Whirlwind was very small for a twin-engined plane, just a little larger than the Hurricane. I think it was designed around its nose-mounted armament. The two Kestrels adding up to a single Merlin essentially.
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: Kazaa on April 13, 2016, 02:20:10 AM
Such a shame planes like the F8F/Hornet didn't see combat in WW2, which is one of HTC's rules for adding new aircraft.
it was a stupid plane. the only good thing about it was that it could use in its constraction the parts from many many scrapped P51s. Otherwise, that is the worst way to build a two seater.
Your assessment is incorrect. The F-82 was a completely new plane with zero parts in common with any of the P-51 line (including the engine). The opposing cockpits, however, were poorly conceived.
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: Brooke on April 13, 2016, 02:45:46 AM
The F-82's always puzzled me... Two engines. Two cockpits. Two pilots...
Wouldn't it just be better to have two separate P-51s?
I think original design was for very-long-range escort of B-29's, for 2000-mile missions with one pilot at a time maybe taking a nap (or at least relaxing).
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: GScholz on April 13, 2016, 06:48:22 AM
An autopilot could have done that.
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: Brooke on April 13, 2016, 12:40:15 PM
Also, for long escort flights of B-29's, the F-86 would need to stay in formation with, or in escort position with, the B-29's, so an autopilot wouldn't do that at the time.
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: Ack-Ack on April 13, 2016, 12:47:56 PM
Your assessment is incorrect. The F-82 was a completely new plane with zero parts in common with any of the P-51 line (including the engine). The opposing cockpits, however, were poorly conceived.
The twin vertical tails were from the XP-51F (XP-51F became the P-51H).
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: Ack-Ack on April 13, 2016, 12:53:21 PM
I think original design was for very-long-range escort of B-29's, for 2000-mile missions with one pilot at a time maybe taking a nap (or at least relaxing).
Remember -HR- (Hard Rock) from AW? His father flew P-82s and I had asked him about the role of the 2nd pilot and he said it was for the reason you stated, alternating controls on long flights. The only exception was the night fighter version, a radar operator replaced the 2nd pilot.
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: morfiend on April 13, 2016, 01:30:59 PM
You know I've never seen such rules...... I have heard no 1 offs and no prototypes but nothing about combat. If you ask HTC you wont get a definitive answer!
In the past I have heard all sort of rules,like most see combat,must be at squadron level/equipped,had to be in service. However this has mostly come from the players!!!
So would the F8F count? it was in squadron service in the US,there were 2 fully equipped squads in transport before the war,then I've heard that there were 2,maybe 3 F7F's flying night patrols around Okinawa,I'm not sure how many were in transport at the time. Then the Hornet,it was flying in trials before the war ended,IIRC it's first flight was very early 45 like Jan.
So until I hear from HTC what the exact rules for inclusion are,I would hope that maybe 1 day we will see several of these monster flying,besides they could decide to do a Korean war arena which would include the above planes and several more!
:salute
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: DaveBB on April 13, 2016, 05:42:53 PM
F-82 was designed as a B-29 escort. Pilot fatigue was a major factor, hence the two pilots. An autopilot would not have been effective, as it doesn't keep formation.
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: GScholz on April 13, 2016, 06:31:03 PM
A loose formation could easily be held. The B-17 used autopilot and they flew in tightly controlled formations.
http://www.398th.org/Research/B17_AFCE.html
Some versions of the 109 and 190 were also fitted with an autopilot.
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: Brooke on April 13, 2016, 06:41:26 PM
Did bomber pilots use the autopilot while flying in formation (other than when bombardier was in control for the bomb run)?
I have read lots of accounts by bomber pilots and have never seen mention of pilots using autopilot in formation.
GScholz, don't bother posting anything written after WWII, even if it is by a WWII bomber pilot saying "We used autopilots in formations in WWII" -- as that doesn't count, right? ;)
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: DaveBB on April 13, 2016, 06:56:14 PM
I have never read of B-17 pilots using autopilot to maintain formation. I know B-17s were equipped with a rudimentary autopilot (mainly for bombing), but every account of formation flying in combat I have read about talked about manually flying the aircraft.
Can you cite one source of pilots using autopilot to maintain formation?
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: Zoney on April 13, 2016, 07:04:18 PM
GScholz, don't bother posting anything written after WWII, even if it is by a WWII bomber pilot saying "We used autopilots in formations in WWII" -- as that doesn't count, right? ;)
WAPOW !!!
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: Ack-Ack on April 13, 2016, 07:06:04 PM
I have never read of B-17 pilots using autopilot to maintain formation. I know B-17s were equipped with a rudimentary autopilot (mainly for bombing), but every account of formation flying in combat I have read about talked about manually flying the aircraft.
Can you cite one source of pilots using autopilot to maintain formation?
This from the Operations Officer 601st Squadron, 398th Bomb Group alludes that the lead aircraft in the formation used the autopilot.
Quote
When the lead pilot flew the aircraft on autopilot, he used the turn control for minor adjustments to the flight path of the aircraft. The autopilot provided a stable attitude and steady heading for the lead aircraft. Since the autopilot had no altitude sensor, adjustments had to be watchfully made to the plane’s altitude by the pilot referring to the altimeter on his instrument panel.
http://www.398th.org/Research/B17_AFCE.html
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: GScholz on April 13, 2016, 07:23:48 PM
Did bomber pilots use the autopilot while flying in formation (other than when bombardier was in control for the bomb run)?
Yes. The autopilot was not initially intended to be controlled by the bombardier. That was a modification added later on. Initially the pilot would control the aircraft during the bomb run following a Pilot Direction Indicator on his instrument panel that was controlled by the bomb sight.
"There was a major advance in bombing capability when the autopilot was modified to provide lateral control of the aircraft to the Norden bombsight for the bomb run The following paragraphs explain these later modifications to the pilot and bombardier’s “Turn Control” switch that were vitally needed for better control of the airplane."
GScholz, don't bother posting anything written after WWII, even if it is by a WWII bomber pilot saying "We used autopilots in formations in WWII" -- as that doesn't count, right? ;)
If it was the only source available, and purely anecdotal, I would agree. ;)
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: GScholz on April 13, 2016, 07:25:16 PM
I have never read of B-17 pilots using autopilot to maintain formation. I know B-17s were equipped with a rudimentary autopilot (mainly for bombing), but every account of formation flying in combat I have read about talked about manually flying the aircraft.
Can you cite one source of pilots using autopilot to maintain formation?
I did.
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: Oldman731 on April 13, 2016, 09:07:13 PM
Ack-ack's source referred to the lead ship using the autopilot, and this makes sense, because everyone had to form on the lead. Scholz' sources are referring to the minute bombardier controls of the Norden sight, which were only intended to be used for the last few miles of the bomb run. Flying a thousand miles over water, in any sort of formation, through whatever weather occurred between you and the destination, is quite a different thing. When the P-82 was designed and first became operational, I'd be surprised if the autopilots of the day were capable of holding a precise enough course that you could get four planes to fly long distances and still stay within eyesight of each other while the pilots kicked back and relaxed.
But Earl might well know better, and I believe he flew P-82s.
- oldman
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: GScholz on April 13, 2016, 09:22:36 PM
"I used the automatic pilot on most flights and bomb runs."
Of course small adjustments would have to be made at times to stay in a loose formation, but it sure beats flying 2000 miles hands on.
Oldman, the "autopilots of the day" were advanced enough that a pilotless aircraft could fly hundreds of miles and bomb a city all on its own.
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: GScholz on April 13, 2016, 09:43:10 PM
And as I pointed out earlier the Germans also put autopilots in single engines fighters. Specifically the PKS 12 autopilot for "bad weather" versions of the 109, 190 and 152. Also Bf 110G and Ju88G night fighters had autopilots with fairly advanced features. Like using RDF direction finder to automatically circle a beacon. And the FuBl 2 "blind landing" system to automatically align the aircraft with the landing beam and using the FuG 101 radar altimeter to automatically manage the glide path. The pilot would only need to take control at the last minute to perform the touchdown.
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: Crash Orange on April 13, 2016, 11:15:09 PM
Oldman, the "autopilots of the day" were advanced enough that a pilotless aircraft could fly hundreds of miles and bomb a city all on its own.
The accuracy those guidance systems were able to achieve was measured in miles, and that was at a range of no more than 150 miles or so. If there had been one with the range to fly thousands of miles they'd have been lucky to hit within 100 miles of the target.
As for B-17s, the lead plane flying on autopilot with the rest of the group using manual control to maintain formation is not the same as a formation of planes all flying on autopilot. There was no .wingman autopilot function in real B-17s or P-51s. And as I'm sure you're aware, on bomb runs the procedure was for the bombardier in the lead plane to use his bombsight and the rest of the planes to maintain formation under the pilots' control and drop when they saw the lead plane's bombs drop. In tight combat boxes if they'd all been on autopilot and flying by the bombsight there would have been multiple collisions on every bomb run.
The F-82 may have been a dumb way to build a two-seater, but the need for two pilots per aircraft on very long missions was real.
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: Brooke on April 14, 2016, 02:19:16 AM
If it was the only source available, and purely anecdotal, I would agree. ;)
I'm just needling you -- I think such sources provide evidence as well. :aok
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: MiloMorai on April 14, 2016, 05:58:10 AM
Back in the '70s did R&O on the 3 axis gyro unit for the autopilot used in the CF-5. To pass inspection after 4 hours, the azimuth deviation had to be less than 4 degrees.
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: Wmaker on April 14, 2016, 07:22:23 AM
The need for a human being in the cockpit is much more than just doing the stick-ruddering.
- Generally staying alert and ready for anything that might occur during a combat mission/change in plan
- Scanning the skies
- Monitoring the aircraft systems
- Communicating with the mission
- Keeping tabs on your location. What if something happens to your aircraft and you have to abort the mission turn back?
All very tiring when it continues hours on end. Tired pilot isn't a good pilot.
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: GScholz on April 14, 2016, 09:14:36 AM
I guess autopilot really is useless then. Wonder why just about every aircraft has one today...
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: Wmaker on April 14, 2016, 10:23:10 AM
I guess autopilot really is useless then. Wonder why just about every aircraft has one today...
Having autopilot replacing one pilot doesn't address any of the issues I brought up. The reason why F-82 had two pilots and how autopilots work today have nothing to do with each other.
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: GScholz on April 14, 2016, 10:59:06 AM
In WWII the U.S. was unique in that they (could afford to) provide aircraft with more than one pilot. Even long range bombers like the Lancaster typically had only one pilot.
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: GScholz on April 14, 2016, 11:00:22 AM
Having autopilot replacing one pilot doesn't address any of the issues I brought up. The reason why F-82 had two pilots and how autopilots work today have nothing to do with each other.
So an autopilot wouldn't help reduce pilot fatigue?
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: Wmaker on April 14, 2016, 11:07:05 AM
In WWII the U.S. was unique in that they (could afford to) provide aircraft with more than one pilot. Even long range bombers like the Lancaster typically had only one pilot.
Yep, they could.
Doesn't change the notion that a 1940's autopilot = trained combat pilot is laughable.
Btw, haven't checked but I'd be very surprised if the F-82 didn't have an autopilot. P-47N had one. F-82 was designed for flying even longer and thus the two pilots.
Nor could anyone else. The F-82 was the only long range fighter to have two pilots.
- Just because you can't grasp something doesn't mean everyone else can't.
- NAA engineers obviously had an idea, the same guys who also put the autopilot in the plane.
- F-82 was also, as an escort fighter, pretty much alone with how long its missions would have lasted. Just because other firms didn't build an escort fighter with two pilots doesn't mean "no one understood NAA's decision to do so."
One last time. Saying that autopilot can take care of everything there is to do during an escort sortie is stupid. If it is considered that the endurance of the mission is too long for a single pilot without rest, then autopilot isn't going to solve that problem either.
One could argue that a single pilot could have done it but that is a totally separate argument.
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: GScholz on April 14, 2016, 12:35:05 PM
I do understand the reasoning behind it. I just don't agree with it. Just like every fighter design that came before it, and after it. You seem to not like that for some reason and resort to personal attacks.
I think original design was for very-long-range escort of B-29's, for 2000-mile missions with one pilot at a time maybe taking a nap (or at least relaxing).
You can hang onto my exact words all you want. Everything is there above.
Keep squirming.
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: GScholz on April 14, 2016, 01:00:45 PM
No one has said "fully relax" except you. You keep putting words in my (and others') mouth, and keep reading into things rather than what is actually being said. I was questioning the need for two pilots in the first place, not suggesting that a piece of equipment was equal to a pilot. And having two separate aircraft is much more preferable in the event of combat. Even if the pilots are a bit more fatigued. 12 F-82 vs 24 P-51H the outcome is pretty obvious.
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: GScholz on April 14, 2016, 01:07:05 PM
I think original design was for very-long-range escort of B-29's, for 2000-mile missions with one pilot at a time maybe taking a nap (or at least relaxing).
12 F-82 vs 24 P-51H the outcome is pretty obvious.
Indeed. 24 P-51H's in the drink.
Did you forget what the P/F-82 was in the first place? Very long range fighter. Well beyond 2000 miles.
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: GScholz on April 14, 2016, 01:17:38 PM
No where in those quotes do I say or even suggest an autopilot "can take care of everything there is to do during an escort sortie" or allow the pilot to "fully relax". An autopilot would the pilot to relax more and reduce pilot fatigue, and you agreed with me on that.
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: Wmaker on April 14, 2016, 01:23:06 PM
No where in those quotes do I say or even suggest an autopilot "can take care of everything there is to do during an escort sortie" or allow the pilot to "fully relax". An autopilot would the pilot to relax more and reduce pilot fatigue, and you agreed with me on that.
Yes it does. Or if you think a person taking a nap is alert and fully into flying a combat mission.
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: GScholz on April 14, 2016, 01:25:46 PM
The P-51H had a range of 1200 miles (1350 in the later version with bigger fuselage tank) on internal fuel only. With two 150 gallon drop tanks it doubled that range to well in excess of 2000 miles.
The P-51H had a range of 1200 miles (1350 in the later version with bigger fuselage tank) on internal fuel only. With two 150 gallon drop tanks it doubled that range to well in excess of 2000 miles.
Salomon Islands, one of the projected places where P-82 would have escorted bombers is ~3200 miles one way from Tokyo. P-82 flew from Hawaii to New York non-stop (~5000 miles).
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: Wmaker on April 14, 2016, 01:35:49 PM
Keep reading more into things all you like. It's your problem, not mine. :)
Not reading into things. Exact words from Brooke to which you replied. Something you claimed no one said.
Keep squirming.
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: GScholz on April 14, 2016, 01:40:16 PM
Not in a combat configuration it didn't. It was rigged with special fuel pods to make that journey in 1947. And still that's just over 5000 miles. Nowhere near the 3200 one-way missions you're suggesting (6400 miles total). Funny how you initially say more than 2000 miles and when that is shown to work against your argument, you change the whole premise. And still get it wrong.
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: GScholz on April 14, 2016, 01:42:18 PM
Funny how you initially say more than 2000 miles and when that is shown to work against your argument, you change the whole premise. And still get it wrong.
Both facts come from the initial requirement of the War Department which led to the plane's design process. In addition to Salomons, Philippnes were also considered. It is true that Betty Joe that flew the Hawaii-New York wasn't armed for example but that's irrelevant when considering the original point. The only way to know what exact maximum range they would/could have extracted from the P-/F-82 is if they would have gone to war in their intended role during Pacific War. Kind of like the range increasing drop tanks became operational in the ETO.
In combat config P/F-82 would have always gone further than P-51H regardless.
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: GScholz on April 14, 2016, 02:06:07 PM
I agree that the F-82's range was greater, but was it a useful range advantage? History seems to disagree except in niche roles. And like so many twins before it the F-82 did find its nice role as a long range all-weather bomber interceptor flying over the Pacific... Flying with one pilot and a radar operator.
Feel free to have the last word. I'm done.
Title: Re: F7F Tigercat
Post by: Wmaker on April 14, 2016, 02:38:05 PM