Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: 28sweep on June 19, 2002, 11:39:35 AM
-
If memory serves me right-this fighter was optimized for speed, climb and maneuverability-not for range like most US fighters. So in short-its not a flying gas tank like all of the US fighters. I believe it still holds the world record for a piston engine plane for time to 10,000ft. Sounds like it would fit in real good in the MA. I mean it should be perked but for base defense etc. it would be fun to have. Did it ever see any action anywhere? I don't think so
..is that a requirement for AH?????
-
It would be a monstrous MA plane. So far HTC seems to be limiting the plane set to aircraft that shot at enemy aircraft during the war. However at the rate HTC is adding aircraft and expanding the player base it seems inevitable that some day there will be a place to fly F8Fs, SeaFurys, P-51Hs etc.. against each other.
Hooligan
-
The F8F Bearcat did not see any service in the war. It flew missions, but never ran into combat. It's speed was 421, it climbed to 10K faster than any jet made in that time. It had 4 x 20mm cannon or 4 x .50 caliber machine guns. It actually had a longer range than the F6F Hellcat. F6F could go 1040 miles on internal fuel. The F8F could go 1105 miles. Its climb rate was about 4,570 FPM from the book I have here. It was the fastest piston-engined production aircraft ever built. It was 20 percent lighter than the Hellcat and had a 30 percent better climb than the Hellcat. Its engine was rated at 2100hp a Pratt & Whitney R-2800-34W engine. I hope that helps you out.
Everyone!
~BlueiceJ~
-
Seafury piston engined, 460 mph at 18000ft.
Think Tempest on steroids.
Believe they were used in unlimited class air racing setting speed records.
Unfortunately not used in WW2.
-
Do335 Pfeil, max speed 478 mph (770kmh) at 21,000ft (6400m), cruising speed 426mph (685kmh) at 23,295ft (7100m) and service ceiling 37,400ft (11400m)...
-
The F8F is probably pushing things. But I'd like to see one since it's one of my favorites.
-
Tempest II, 150 octane fuel and water injection. 3000hp, 426mph at sea level, 451mph at 7,000ft.
There's a few charts over at Butch's board
http://pub47.ezboard.com/fallboutwarfarefrm1
-
F8F nice plane.. But NO! it has no place here..
there are 100s of almost made it into the war...
:)
-
Originally posted by SELECTOR
F8F nice plane.. But NO! it has no place here..
there are 100s of almost made it into the war...
:)
actual this was a ww2 production plane, it was on combat
duty in the pacific. USS Langley, VF 18 and 19 i think.
war ended before thier TG made it to front lines near japan.
whels
-
Heres an article on flying the bearcat someone might find interesting
http://www.avweb.com/articles/pelperch/pelp0039.html
-
Well how bout a F7F Tigercat and F9F Panther. And we can call it eaven:rolleyes: Realy the F7F would be a good adition.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Tempest II, 150 octane fuel and water injection. 3000hp, 426mph at sea level, 451mph at 7,000ft.
[/url]
Heh I honestly would like to know how would a Ju213A engine perform with 150 octane fuel and MW50...
knowing that with C3 (96 octane?) and MW50 the Ju213A had an output of 2600hp...(or was it 2250hp?...heh I still don't understand the 190D9 charts very well, I'm afraid :D) you can only guess the class of superengine -and superplane- we're talking about. :)
[edit] looking at the power chart for the Ju213A, with B4 and MW50 the plane delivered 2100hp@SL, and whith some special thing -not sure what it is- it delivered 2250hp@SL.
I guess that with C3+MW50 the engine delivered those 2600hp I've read somewhere else...can someone put more data on this?. if so,Post it here :) (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56310) -don't want this to go offtopic so I started another thread on my own :)
-
Fastest piston engine aircraft ever is pretty much an overstatement I'd say.
Many planes had a top speed faster then the F8F.
THE Fastest piston engine plane ever flown was an XP47 (P47M Prototype) that reached 510mph in level flight.
-
Originally posted by 28sweep
Does the F8F have a place here?
No
eskimo
-
Originally posted by 214thCavalier
Seafury piston engined, 460 mph at 18000ft.
Think Tempest on steroids.
Believe they were used in unlimited class air racing setting speed records.
Unfortunately not used in WW2.
P-47M, 470 MPH:)
-
NO
If it didn't fire a shot or drop a bomb against enemy forces it has no place in here IMO.
There are many great planes yet to be modeled in here. Only way you are going to be away from everyone flying the "Ubber Bird" de jeur is have an RPS (Rolling Plane Set). Nut untill HTC gets a few more types online that is not very practical.
-
I would love it to be here.
-
Depends.
What if they go ahead and add 1945-46 planes? Ever been done in a MMOL sim flight sim before? Might be kind of interesting.
I do hope they fill out the actual war planeset first, though. Especially the Japanese planeset.
-
Originally posted by 214thCavalier
Seafury piston engined, 460 mph at 18000ft.
Think Tempest on steroids.
Believe they were used in unlimited class air racing setting speed records.
Unfortunately not used in WW2.
Yes, the Seafury has done well in air racing. However, none of them come close to Lyle Shelton's F8F, Rarebear. It currently holds the Closed Course World Speed Record (528.3 mph) and 3000 Meter Time-To-Climb Record (91.9 seconds). During one leg of the record shattering speed run, Rarebear reached 540 mph TAS.
(http://www.rarebear.com/bear2.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Dammit!
BRING BREWSTER TO AH! :D
-
I'm countrin WW2 planes here guys, not WW2 planes greatly modified with new engines etc. If I'm not misstaking that (damn cool looking btw) F8F Widewing have a picture of also has got a low drag canopy.
Count WW2 planes only and F8F is far from the fastest.
XP47 - P47M prototype reached 510mph. TA152 472mph, Do335 474mph, P51H 482mph.
-
I don't know about fastest but I am sure it still holds the record for time to 10,000 ft for a piston engine plane. I don't believe it was modfied and the test was done by the US navy off a carrier.........
-
Would the F8F be interesting? Yes. Does it have a place in AH? IMO, NO.
Neither it, nor the D-335, or others that were "in production" but did not see combat. And I'm not talking incidental combat, where it just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time......
My personal definition of "saw combat" would be the plane was deployed, deemed ready for operation, flew missions with intent to do battle, and did see battle.
This discounts, at least for me, any of the "yeah, well, Oberleutnant Uberdonut was flying the FW99023 on a test flight, and he got jumped by 100 Mustangs. He firewalled the throttle and zoomed away from them. They shot at him, so he saw combat." Those accounts are really reaching, and seem more desperate to get the plane modelled than a rational reason to have the plane included in AH.
Just my thoughts...............
-
yeah, well, Oberleutnant Uberdonut was flying the FW99023 on a test flight, and he got jumped by 100 Mustangs. He firewalled the throttle and zoomed away from them. They shot at him, so he saw combat.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Andijg
NO
If it didn't fire a shot or drop a bomb against enemy forces it has no place in here IMO.
Time to remove AH's version of the C-47!
The F8F is still a great looking airplane.
(http://www.avphoto.com/arlington2001/ground/bearcat.jpg)
MiG
-
It IS an awsome looking plane but now is not the time for it in AH. Maybe oneday HTC will give us a 1946 plane set update to play with in CT or somewhere but with so many other things that could add to MA play......
A question for the Aircraft historians....I seem to remember somewhere that the origins of the F8 came from when Gruman got a look at a captured FW and thought...."Ya know, this thing would be awsome with a Pratt&Whitney engine" Any truth there?
-
INCOMING!!!
-
The p-47M did see combat during W.W.2 and was the fastest piston engine airplane that saw combat on a regular basis:D
-------------Nothin says lovin like 8 .50's in yer oven------------
[/COLOR]
-
*Ducks down beside popeye*
-
Originally posted by TMASTadon
A question for the Aircraft historians....I seem to remember somewhere that the origins of the F8 came from when Gruman got a look at a captured FW and thought...."Ya know, this thing would be awsome with a Pratt&Whitney engine" Any truth there?
I think you are correct but I would have to check a couple of sources I have in my books on planes. BTW where in Birmingham do you live? Check my location :D
-
A question for the Aircraft historians....I seem to remember somewhere that the origins of the F8 came from when Gruman got a look at a captured FW and thought...."Ya know, this thing would be awsome with a Pratt&Whitney engine" Any truth there?
I read that in an Air Classics once, but i can't find the mag. I believe they wanted to take the FW concept and stretch it to its extremes, which they seem to have accomplished. It would probably be like a super N1k2, in fact far beyond the so called "UFO" FM version. I would think it would fill that role against p-51hs, TAs, Spit 14s, etc. in a super planes CT environment.
Charon
-
"As a final demonstration of the Bearcat's fantastic climbing ability, an F8F is reported to have set the record for a climb of 10,000 feet from a standing start in 91 seconds. It is said to have held this record for almost three decades, until finally beaten by an F-16 Fighting Falcon. The author witnessed a maximum performance takeoff by a civilian Bearcat in the late 1960s, and the airplane went up straight and out of sight."
From here:
http://nasaui.ited.uidaho.edu/nasaspark/safety/f8f/f8ftechnical.htm
-
Better to put the F8F in a '1946 Arena"
-
Grumman chief designer and chief test pilot and of prewar racing fame Robert "Bob" Hall along with possibly Leroy Grumman himself went to England in 1943 and test flew a captured Fw190A5. They are often quoted "If we put a R2800 in this thing we'd have a world beater!" Out of this they propsed the F8F project to the navy, IIRC there was no standing navy requirement for a lightweight compact figther.
They designed the Bearcat out of this experience, it is based on the FW190 concept and is not a direct development of the F4F or F6F concept. Bearcat and FW190 match almost perfectly in proportion, wingspan, length, and weight. The F8F has a wider wing.
Kurt tank didnt invent F8F, but he invented the plane that F8F was based on. :)
If some of you arent happy about this fact then go happily screw yourselves.... :)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Grumman chief designer and chief test pilot and of prewar racing fame Robert "Bob" Hall along with possibly Leroy Grumman himself went to England in 1943 and test flew a captured Fw190A5. They are often quoted "If we put a R2800 in this thing we'd have a world beater!" Out of this they propsed the F8F project to the navy, IIRC there was no standing navy requirement for a lightweight compact figther.
They designed the Bearcat out of this experience, it is based on the FW190 concept and is not a direct development of the F4F or F6F concept. Bearcat and FW190 match almost perfectly in proportion, wingspan, length, and weight. The F8F has a wider wing.
Kurt tank didnt invent F8F, but he invented the plane that F8F was based on. :)
If some of you arent happy about this fact then go happily screw yourselves.... :)
I am not saying this is not true, but the only place I have ever heard this is in this forum. Is there any sort of documentation to back that up?
-
I would bet the Bearcat uses a different airfoil (than an Fw), as well as almost every other part on the plane. Besides the fact that it is powered by a radial aircooled engine it shares almost nothing with the Fw. Period. They certainly may have flown an Fw and thought WOW. But to say that the Bearcat is somehow a copy of or an improvement on a Fw is utter hogwash.
Notice that the Bearcat is a mid-wing aircraft. Like every Grumman monoplane in the cat family before it. Notice the Fw is NOT a mid-wing design. Geeze I don't know where this stuff gets started. The Bearcat is the logical progression of the Cat family, end of story, cya later, bye bye.
Spritle
-
No it's not hogwash there was a writeup about it in an aviation magazine long (3+ years) ago.
And just like here, I mentioned it over on AGW and for some unknown and dumb reason some had a hard time believing it.
No one is saying that 'the F8F was awesome because it was an American copy of the Fw 190'.
It was the same concept - that is all. Big radial engine, screw sustained turn, etc. All engine great roll rate great performance (speed/climb/accel/etc.) to heck with everything else. Compare the F8F to the F6F and F4U in terms of concept. Look at the wing area, etc.
I cannot remember the magazine unfortunately.
Mike/wulfie
-
Not to mention 4 yes 4 high velocity 37mm cannons in the XP47.
-
so in short, it just was a tad faster than the P-38 ;) :D
-
Wilbus, although that comment does bring a smile, it really does mean it saw combat. Lol =)
-
What comment? :)
-
It's really not much different from an La-7. Just better performance at high altitudes.
-
Bearcat looks more like a GB racer than a FW to me. I don't think the FW broke any new ground in trying to mate a large engine to a small airframe either. I don't dispute the quote about the FW by the Grumman team, but I'm not sure I'd accept that the Bearcat is a FW knockoff. In fact, sounds like a slam against German engine manufacturing to me. By war's end aircraft are starting to look kind of a like to me... large radial engine, small airframe, bubble canopy... sounds like Georges, LA7s, Bearcats and probably much more. The Bearcat looks like a streamlined Wildcat with a monster engine to me too.
As I've said before... Give me a Bearcat and I'll stop whining about the LA7.
-
if seeing combat qualifies a plane for AH, then i think the F7F qualifies. F7F-3Ps flew a few operations for the US Marine Corps towards the end of WWII. Since the F7F's was designed as a twin engine carrier bomber, i dont think the rule about shooting at someone should apply (the Arado Shnellbomber certainly never shot at anything)
-
Shoot something, bomb something etc
-
I don't know to which extent did the F8F draw ideas from the Fw190, but let me tell you one thing.
In Mid-1942 the Fw190 was, without challenge, the best fighter in the world.
If you get a hand on a captured plane wich is causing havoc between your planes and your allies' planes, then you'd be VERY stupid not to draw and copy its best features into your own designs.
Its a fact that the Bearcat designers had taken a good look at the captured 190s. Same did the russians, british and even japanese.
Someone said there the 190 was not ground breaking in anything. Well, you must take a second look to that affirmation, the Fw190 WAS ground breaking it its engine installation (it was deemed highly difficult to mount such a big radial engine into a such a small and narrow airframe as the 190's, yet Tank designed a magnific,compact, installation), the engine itself (Kommandogėrat anyone?), the electrical systems (first all-electrical fighter), and its rollrate (best rolling fighter in the war).
I will tell you just one thing...the RAF copied the engine installation of the Fw190 in the Sea Fury, the Soviets did the same with the La5/F/FN/La7 family (which emerged after the study of a captured 190 by the russians), even the japanese copied the 190's installation when putting the new radial engine into the Ki61 airframe to convert it into what was called Ki100.
I don't know other things, but the bearcat also copied that installation. I don't know where is the problem in admitting it, damnit...the 190 was a damned fine plane with many superb features. One would have to be VERY stupid not to copy (when possible) the good features used by the enemy in their own planes!.
-
Originally posted by whgates3
if seeing combat qualifies a plane for AH, then i think the F7F qualifies. F7F-3Ps flew a few operations for the US Marine Corps towards the end of WWII. Since the F7F's was designed as a twin engine carrier bomber, i dont think the rule about shooting at someone should apply (the Arado Shnellbomber certainly never shot at anything)
Maybe not bomber version but there were also few night-fighters with MG151/20 cannons in the bellypack.
btw how do you know schnellbombers never shot at anything??
-
...i thought it was armed only w/ bombs
-
Originally posted by whgates3
...i thought it was armed only w/ bombs
.....and backwards firing MG151/20s....
-
...but you knew that already didn't you ?
-
-
Well if we're making irrational requests, why not add the F2G Super Corsair while we're at it :)
-
I would say that the F8F does not belong in the Aces High world, since it did not see combat. It would make an interesting third-party add-on for "Combat Flight Simulator 2" though.
I would prefer to see some of the Japanese aircraft that did engage in combat, even though they were either limited in production numbers or limited in flight time. The Hayate would be a welcome addition to the Japanese plane set.
-
"I don't know where is the problem in admitting it..."
Probably because it's basically not true for the F8F. And even if it was it would be very hard for many to admit it much in the same way you cannot admit at all that Tank stole the 190 design from the 1930's Hughes racer.
Westy
-
Originally posted by K West
Probably because it's basically not true for the F8F.
It is,at least in what respects to the engine mounting- the rest, I don't really know. and I don't really mind, either :p :)
And even if it was it would be very hard for many to admit it much in the same way you cannot admit at all that Tank stole the 190 design from the 1930's Hughes racer.
Westy
he did?. I have no idea if he did, but if that was the case, kudos to Kurt Tank for grabbing a good plane's idea and improving it to the point of designing one of the best engineered planes in WWII, and one of the all-times classic of World aviation :).
You said I cannot admit it?. HEck, its quite easy! :). If Tank used the Hughes racer as basis for the 190, Kudos for him for choosing a good design where to base his work on, and even bigger kudos for him for improving the design so much as he did! :)
-
lol.
If you know nothing about the Hughes racer being the foundation for the 190 then how would you know if Tank had improved upon the H1 at all? You're so transparant and fanatical it's beyond ludicrous.
Westy
-
Originally posted by K West
lol.
If you know nothing about the Hughes racer then how would you know if Tank had improved upon it at all? You're so transparant and fanatical it's beyond ludicrous.
Westy
Oh, Westy. I know about hughes racer. I simply don't know if tank based his design on it, or not :p.
I'd rather say not because what really made the Fw190 something possible was the engine mount designed by Tank that allowed something which was deemed almost impossible until then: the mating of a relatively huge engine (the BMW139 at first, the BMW801 later) into a rather small airframe as the 190's.
But said that, maybe Tank drew another concepts from the racer and included them into the 190.See, I simply don't know, but if it was true I'd dont mind anyway. Is something normal to base the design work done in a plane, in a previous one.
In any case, I'd say that,being the best figher in the world from late-1941 to mid-1943, the Fw190 was kind of an...err..."improvement" over any previous plane ever flown :D
I think than the transparent and fanatical one here is not exactly me, westy ;)
-
Well I'm not transparant and fanatical about any country's aircraft Ram. You are and it has been quite apparant for at least two years. You hold the 190 and Kurt Tank with shrine-like, fanatical adoration. I don't for any aircraft built by any nation.
As for "I simply don't know if tank based his design on it, or not " well at least you seem to be honest about that. But it's funny in that it's quite the opposite as to your presumption that the F8F was heavily influenced by the FW-190 design. For with only far reaching personal conjecture and presumption you link the success of the F8F design directly to copying the FW-190.
And THAT is my point. You cannot accept anything that would not make your belove 190 and it's main desighner Kurt Tank as being anything but the pinacle of WWII aviation. If something was, you always find some way (hence the running BBS joke about Kurt Tank being the founder and designer for literally everything) to link a Focke Wulf product or design team into the scheme of things.
Westy
(IMO the F8F did not use the 190 as it's design basis. At all)
-
I will answer just this from the rest of the (sorry, but I see it this way) trash you've written in your last post.
Originally posted by K West
As for "I simply don't know if tank based his design on it, or not " well at least you seem to be honest about that. But it's funny in that it's quite the opposite as to your presumption that the F8F was heavily influenced by the FW-190 design.
F8F copied the engine installation from the Fw190. Same did the Russians with their radial Lavochkin series. Same did the British with their radial tempests and Sea Fury. SAme did the Japanese with their Ki100.
That is not an opinion. That is a fact.
P.S. Even while the Fw190 has always been my favorite aircraft, and I've always liked anything related with the Luftwaffe, I've never hidden that the Chance-Vought F4U Corsair is my second favorite plane ever. You might check twice about what you think about my aeronautical preferences :). They're not just german.
P.S.2: I think that one of the biggest blunders made by the german aeronautic design firms during WWII was not copying the P51 radiator design and introducing it into the 109 and Radial 190 series. I talked about this with funkedup the other day.
As you see I think is FOOLISH not to copy good designed features from enemy planes in your own. So in the end ,I'm saying that those who copied the Fw190's engine mounting did the smart thing.
-
Originally posted by RRAM
That is not an opinion. That is a fact.
I KNOW I shouldn't ask this question. I know this. But I never learn my lesson...
What is it about the engine installation that was copied? In general terms, what were the Patentable claims and disclosures? Please don't attack that phrase, I work in Intelectual Property, and I'm not sure how else to express what I'm after... What made the Installation of the FW190 unique to radial engines before it?
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
I KNOW I shouldn't ask this question. I know this. But I never learn my lesson...
What is it about the engine installation that was copied? In general terms, what were the Patentable claims and disclosures? Please don't attack that phrase, I work in Intelectual Property, and I'm not sure how else to express what I'm after... What made the Installation of the FW190 unique to radial engines before it?
-Sikboy
Yeah, I'd sure like to know exactly what was copied from the Focke Wulf engine installation. I'm VERY familiar with the F8F installation, and it follows the the same general layout as the the F6F (different oil coller location) and F7F. Me thinks this is baloney.
My regards,
Widewing
-
If it didn't see combat in WW2, it doesn't belong in the game (at least that is my oppinion).
Well I guess you know what I'm gonna say "add biplanes" :D
But really think about it, of we can have latewar ME262, and planes that hardly even saw combat why not biplanes? There were at least 175 Aces that flew biplanes during WW2, such as "Pattle" (not sure on his rank) with 15 victories in his Gloster Gladiator, and some (I think he was russian guy can't remember his name) with 14 victories.
Even the "Hawker Fury" (wich even I think is a little too outdated for AH, at least untill we get allot more early mono&biplanes) shot down atleast 4 bf109's and a bf110 during the war!
Sorry to get off subject:), the f8f May have a place in AH, once ALL WW2 planes are added, then they might expand the game, but untill then they should be working on WW2 planes I think.
-
Widewing beat me to it. The F8F cowling, engine installation and exhaust run are directly drawn from the F6F. Just look at the F6F and you can see for yourself how it's literally an exact match while comparing the FW setup to the and F8F (via cutaway drawings etc etc) is not. At all. The FW-190 and the Fury? Yes.
As for Bob Hall, well yes he test flew the FW-190 that was captured. But he was also the cheif engineer for the Gee Bee Z 1930's racing plane. He certainly had a lot of experience in putting huge engines on small airframes.
Westy
-
i herad the f8f was modelled after a captured fw190
-
Why doesn't the F8F Bearcat have a place in AH? Any plane that served in WWII or was made FOR WWII should be in AH.
-
"i herad the f8f was modelled after a captured fw190"
No? You don't say.
Westy
-
I dont understand any of this...the bearcat looks like a pumped up F6, not a 190...what difference does it make?
Chit, the pony looks more like the cousin of a German plane than the bearcat. Either way, no need for the bearcat in here, if so, perk it at +200.
Paul
-
And I heard that the Zero was modeled on a pre-war Vaught design. But it wasn't. Well, unless you count the fact that both had one engine, two wings and were tail draggers. Serriously, I remember this story, it was crap, but I remember reading both the assertion and the refutation. Maybe it's like the "FW was neutered because of net lag issues." Something that seems so plausable, it becomes a "well known fact"
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by HeLLcAt
Why doesn't the F8F Bearcat have a place in AH? Any plane that served in WWII or was made FOR WWII should be in AH.
The Bearcat NEVER even shot at an enemy plane in WW2.
-
Neither did the C-47 we have :)
Westy
-
Originally posted by HeLLcAt
Why doesn't the F8F Bearcat have a place in AH? Any plane that served in WWII or was made FOR WWII should be in AH.
That would make way for some interesting Luftwaffe fighters, and some highly unhistorical and surrealistic furballs. Maybe HTC should launch "Fantasy High" for all the "I want my late-war superplane"?
-
No enemy ever shot at the Bearcat.
That should solve the C-47 problem.;)
-
<<>>
Kurt Tank invented putting the engine up front enclosed by a cowl, driving a propellor which pulls the plane through the air. Jeeeeez. :rolleyes:
ra
You think the fact that the FW-190 and the F8F both start with 'F' is a coincidence????? Get real.
PS: no, the F8F does not belong in AH, it never made it to the war.
-
Originally posted by K West
Neither did the C-47 we have :)
Westy
lol, Hmmm... I wonder why it never shot at an enemy plane :rolleyes: but (as Karnak said) It was shot at! :D :p
-
Probably because it's basically not true for the F8F. And even if it was it would be very hard for many to admit it much in the same way you cannot admit at all that Tank stole the 190 design from the 1930's Hughes racer.
Me? But stole is rediculous...... It was same relationship as FW190 to F8F.
Actually I know that, and have no trouble with it. Kurt Tank is said to have been very impressed by the H1.
I have no problem with that why do you think I would?
Heres a few more:
The Spitfire wing was copied from a Heinkel design, the lead spitfire wing designer admits this.
The Ju88 was designed with the help of US stressed skin metal aircraft experts.
Just about everyone copied the FW190 engine mount setup.
The USA copied the R4M, made into larger version "Mickey Mouse" used on 1950s US interceptors like F86D
EVERYONE copied the MG213 20mm/30mm 1200rpm revolver cannon. USA M39, French DEFA and British ADEN.
EVERYONE copied German swept wing research. Most notable successes were Boeing B47 and North American F86. Both were originally straight wing with much less performance.
What else.
So again why do you such a problem with the F8F being based on the FW190 concept? I mean the chief designer of Grumman and its chief test pilot (both Bob Hall, of prewar racing fame) went to England, test flew FW190, said its diddlying awesome then built a plane with nearly identical proportions, weight, size but with an R2800. There was no US Navy request for a light fighter. In fact they wanted bigger ones. The F8F was a Grumman idea based on their experience with FW190.
Please get over it! Its no big deal.
-
Originally posted by K West
Neither did the C-47 we have :)
Westy
Make it Li-2.
-
So again why do you such a problem with the F8F being based on the FW190 concept?
Because we don't understand what it was about the engine placement in the FW190 that is reflected in the F8F, which as far as many of us can tell, was a logical evolution of the F6F, with a more powerfull engine. If you can tell me this, it would be easier to understand, but until such time, the "problem" I have, is that there is no reason for the USN (or in this case Grumman, to copy the FW190, when they have a different mission and requirements. EG, CV TO/Landing, No need for cannons (thanks to Japanese paper airplanes ect). If you want to make a case for an allied plane being "inspired" by the 190, perhaps the corsair would be better. A plane that when introduced didn't make the grade for CV use, and shares many of the same flight charactoristics as the 190 (such as poor low speed turning, and major torque [edit ] and monster roll rate [/edit]
I mean the chief designer of Grumman and its chief test pilot (both Bob Hall, of prewar racing fame) went to England, test flew FW190, said its diddlying awesome then built a plane with nearly identical proportions, weight, size
Wow, did Kurt Tank invent post hoc reasoning as well?
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
EVERYONE copied German swept wing research. Most notable successes were Boeing B47 and North American F86. Both were originally straight wing with much less performance.
the XP-79 was designed, at the very latest, January 1943.
It had swept wings.
The Schwalbe wasn't seen by the allies until July 1944.
-
My whole point is F8F is not the logical evolution of F6F Navy plane. US navy was wanting bigger and heavier fighters, not light ones. Look at what grumman competitors were putting up at the time. They were often 12,000lbs and bigger. Some were positively monsterous with r3350 and 4330 (the two big PW engines if numbers arent exact) series engines. Not R2800 in a FW190 sized plane. Hall said exactly "If we put an R2800 in this thing (FW190) we'd have a world beater". And thats what a bearcat is. Bearcat is even smaller than F4F, bearcat is just about identical in size and weight to FW190.
So what if XP79 had a swept leading edge? Being and North American both freeley admit they flat out copied german swept wing technology.
Maybe arrogant americans invented this idea that they never copy other peoples ideas?
Frankly Im getting tired of this arguing over F8F, why should I try taling to people who are just so afraid of this idea they have to make fun of a planes designer for people suggesting one plane was based on his. I find that really childish and stupid.
Oh btw Americans were put on the moon by german rocket scientists. There stew over that you bunch of asses. :p
-
Bah screw that u fighter jocks.................... BRING THE B-32 DOMINATOR TO ACES HIGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ten .50's in nose 2 20 mm in tail 2 20mm on top and 2 20 mm in ball turrent........could carry 22,000lbs of bombs......... :P now thats a bomber............
-
Hi whgates3,
>the XP-79 was designed, at the very latest, January 1943.
It had swept wings.
The XP-79 was a flying wing which had a slight sweep back for stability reasons (as customary for flying wings). It was neither fit to nor designed to exploit the advantages of a swept wing in high speed flight which had been pointed out by Busemann in the 1930s.
The XP-79 spun in from10000 ft on its maiden flight (September 1945) when the test pilot tried to fly the first turn. An earlier unpowered prototype had been destroyed after getting into an unrecoverable spin, too.
The Northrop XP-79 was a tragic failure, and it certainly did not inspire the US aircraft industry to copy its concepts.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Maybe arrogant americans invented this idea that they never copy other peoples ideas?
I am not arrogant, and frankly what I look for is the truth, unskewed. Claims as such the the F8F was designed based on the Focke Wulfe would be OK by me if there was something more than heresay to go on. I have seen folks in here say they have seen the dicumentation in a magazine, (or whatever) but I have NEVER seen anything substantial on this matter. I guess thats the real crux of it.
-
don't know other things, but the bearcat also copied that installation. I don't know where is the problem in admitting it, damnit...the 190 was a damned fine plane with many superb features. One would have to be VERY stupid not to copy (when possible) the good features used by the enemy in their own planes!.
In what ways did it copy the installation? The U.S. had many radial engine aircraft.
-
Hi Ammo,
>I have seen folks in here say they have seen the dicumentation in a magazine, (or whatever) but I have NEVER seen anything substantial on this matter. I guess thats the real crux of it.
In a Flight Journal Special ("WW II Fighters", Winter 2000), Grumman test pilot Corky Meyer states with regard to the 1944 Fighter Conference:
"A Focke Wulf-190 was supposed to have been present, but it was held up at Wright Field for maintenance. I regrettet that because both Bob Hall and Bud Gillies had flown it in England in 1943, and the XF8F-1 Bearcat was a direct outgrwoth of their flights. They were greatly impressed by this German fighter."
Barrett Tillman in the same issue comments a bit less substantally on the subject:
"Inevitably, some 190s fell into Allied hands, and thereby lies a tale. In 1943, Grumman test pilot flew a 'short-nose' Fw 190A in England. Tremendously impressed, they returned to Long Island and related the tale to Leroy Grumman, saying 'Boss, if we put an R-2800 on that airframe, we'll have a world beater.'"
However, though the F8F might have been inspired by the Fw 190, I doubt it could be called a copy. Here are what I consider distinguishing features of the Fw 190:
- Forced air-cooling by an engine-driven radiator fan
- Sophistiated internal streamlining of the engine compartment, including internal air intakes
- single-piece inner wing of full monocoque construction (with the gear retracting in front of the main spar) with the outer wings attached as individual pieces
- inner wing built around a massive main spar that does not continue into outer wings
- entire tail unit is not a part of the main fuselage
- electrically synchronized wing root cannon
- streamlined bubble canopy (impressed everyone to no end in 1943 :-)
I don't have any documents on the Bearcat with enough depth to check these points, but I'm sure someone else will have a more complete bookshelf in that regard and help us out :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
HoHun--
TYVM. That is good stuff. While not "proof" or anything, it would lead someone to believe that the Focke Wolf was direct influence on the design of the F8F. I would love to see official design documents regarding this. Maybe they exist somewhere.
THx
-
"Oh btw Americans were put on the moon by german rocket scientists. There stew over that you bunch of tulips :) "
I'm not nationalisticly rabid, so you won't find me stewing over anything of the sort :)
And I'll stand by my opinion that the F8F is not a progression of the the FW-190. I just see several people who read into things far too much who use a lot of imaginative conjecture, far fetched logic to propose otherwise - all based on 50 year old comments regarding a captured enemy plane.
I give it six months before someone claims that the P-51 was a direct decendant of the MC202 based on the Macci having an inline engine and a bottom fuselage cooler. And how an engineer at North American whistled in appreciation for the sexy lines of the 202. And that's how the P-51 became a copy of the 202.
Westy
-
I saw 2 photos of bearcat in my life ;).
Does it look like 190 ? Does your neighbor look like Churchill ? All subjective ;)
To me it does, because i like 190s...
Seriously, we are influenced by the things we experienced. Even if we don't like it. Even if we don't know it. If designers of Bearcat ever flew the 190, Bearcat is influenced by it.
The only way a Bearcat was not influenced by 190 would be to grow its designers on another planet, denying them any knowledge whatsoever of the 190 existance. And even then there could be a coincidence.
Is F-16 influenced by Fokker Dr.I ? Depends on what you consider influence.
-
I just happen to happened to have a nice picture to help. :)
See my other topic (about a 180k jpeg)
Westy
-
Looking at the pic again, it still reminds me more of an F6 moreso than a 190...Maybe the paint scheme does it, I don't know. It could resemble an A8, but not nearly sleek enough to invoke images of the Dora IMO...
Sorry Westy, but to me, it looks like a member of the Grumman Family..
Gainsie
-
"Sorry Westy, but to me, it looks like a member of the Grumman Family.."
And that is what I am saying. I do NOT think the F8F and the FW190 are related at all.
Westy
-
Wih I had better pix (scaled 3 view would bne nicer). But to help here is a comparative shot.
and here are the actual measurements, with the f4f, f6f and spit tossed in for comparison. To say the F8F is a copy of the 190A model size for size is ludicrous also.
F6F Span: 42'10" length: 33'7" height: 13'10" Wing area: 334 sq. ft.
Spit Span: 36'10" length: 31'11" height: 12'08" Wing Area: 242 sq. ft.
F4F Span: 38'0" length: 28'9" Height: 11'10" Wing area: 260 sq. ft
F8F Span: 35'10" length: 28'3" height: 13'10" Wing area: 244 sq. ft.
190 Span: 34'05" length: 28'11" height: 13' Wing area: 197 sq. ft.
F6F Empty: 9,238lb gross: 15,413lb
Spit Empty: 5.065lb gross: 9,500lb
F4F Empty: 5,758lb gross: 7,975lb
F8F Empty: 7,070lb gross: 12,947lb
190 Empty: 6,750lb gross: 10,725lb
-
I read the story about Bob Hall checking out the FW-190 and making that remark.
Sure, "put an R-2800 on this and we'll have a world beater" could, if you really want it to, mean that the F8F is based on a 190. Most Focke-Wulfe fans are gonna read it that way, because they WANT to believe the 190 was so special everyone wanted to copy it.
Others, myself included, who like the 190's but are not 'fans' of them, read it this way: Bob Hall saw the 190, considered the overall design of the plane and wondered out loud just what it would be like with an American radial on it.
The Grumman company designed naval aircraft, they had to be rugged as hell to withstand the punishment of carrier landings and other things that land based aircraft didn't have to endure. Based on that alone, I'd say that barring the resemblance of one radial engined aircraft to another, and having two wings, IMO the Bearcat and 190 don't look a thing alike. Wing shape......different. Vertical stabilizer.........different. The list goes on and on.
The F8F is in my opinion, just the next step Grumman took in their quest to make better aircraft; it is more streamlined, lighter, faster, and more agile than the F6F.
And just for you 190 lovers out there, NO, I am not a 190 hater. The Dora is one of my favorite rides when I do get in LW iron, rivaled only by the 109G10.
-
:) got only 2 remarks ,
i thing all who use this thingy like << kurt tank invented tra la la and i dont know what >> must be fanatic republican :)
another thingy , did you ever seen man dresed like woman and wice wersa ?????:D is it sure what you se is it right ?
so even if bearcat dont look like 190 significate nothing :p
-
FW has a similar wing span length as the Brewster Buffalo. Kurt Stank copied the Buffalo. They even have the same engine mounting...up front!
Quite often, technological advances march in parallel. People from different countries can make the same natural leaps. My guess would be that the Bearcat is more heavily influenced by the Japanese aircraft than anything else and is most heavily influenced by USA R&D.
"If we put an R2800 in this thing (FW190) we'd have a world beater."
Put a J79 jet engine in it and it would be a world beater too! Oh no, the F104 Starfighter and F-4 Phantom II are FW copies. :mad:
-
i read in a magizine that kurt tank was really a frenchman, it must be true , i read it in a magizine
-
Whops, of course the f8f have a place here until we can get the real FW190-a3. Then remove the ugly copy :-)
-
Its closer in size and normal weight to FW190 than every other in that chart ypu posted. Much cloer in fact than either F4F and F6F who were both larger, the F6F much more so.
-
It's actually closer in most dimensions to the Spitfire :D
Westy
-
Hi everyone,
some thoughts on the subject:
In 1943, in was obvious for everyone that the Focke-Wulf was a world-beater. It didn't need an R-2800 for it.
Considering the evident success of the Fw 190, any aviation engineer would be influenced by it. If not, he's an engineer unaware of the current position of the cutting edge.
The F8F clearly was not a Fw 190 copy. The question only can be whether Grummen employed any of the design features introduced by the Fw 190.
Even in the case they didn't, remember that influence doesn't necessarily lead to imitation. Careful examination of a successful design can provide an insight into the priorities of the original designers. Using the same set of priorities when starting with a clean sheet of paper could lead to a fighter with no resemblance to the original, but though invsibible the influence would still be a fact.
A more modern example: The MiG-29 was heavily influenced by the F-15, but it certainly was no copy. It was the Soviet way of designing a twin-engined air superiority fighter, based on an entirely different technological and industrial base. Though the MiG-29 was a completely original design, it probably would have looked very different if there hadn't been the F-15.
In the same way, even if the F8F did not copy any single feature of the Fw 190, Grumman might have arrived at a very different design as successor for the F6F if the Fw 190 hadn't existed.
That's just to point out that influence can be very strong without being evident in the design. If you're looking for something more substantial, you should check Bearcat for the design features I listed above. Superficial similarities or differences aren't that important - the engineering know-how is hidden beneath the aircraft skin.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
In the same way, even if the F8F did not copy any single feature of the Fw 190, Grumman might have arrived at a very different design as successor for the F6F if the Fw 190 hadn't existed.
This is starting to get funny... I think. It was designed to be an interceptor and range wasn't job #1 and therefore small airframe + big engine was the order of the day. Grumman probably studied every design, test study and combat aircraft out there and therefore, the FW190 is owed no more credit than any other aircraft out there judging by the comment quoted above. In fact, technically, the F4U is supposed to be the mating of a big enging and small airframe, so much so that the wings had to be bent. Even if FW190 had never existed, the Bearcat would've appeared as it does due to the design being for an exceptionally climbing interceptor which means:
Big Engine + Small Airframe
(Lotsa Power to Weight)
It's a very elementary idea.
-
F2G Corsair was the US Navy's idea of a fast climbing interceptor. It's not small and it's not light.
Then F6F Hellcat is small to you as well Steven? Its same size as F4U. Prop clearence was not the reason the wing was bent. The most common explanation was to shorten the gear as much as possible for carrier landing pressures. F6F did it with no bent wing, even with its mid wing configuration.
Again I state there was no US Navy order for a light small fighter, it was a Grumman idea based on examination and testing of FW190 by Grumman chief designer and test pilot.
-
Hi Steven,
>Even if FW190 had never existed, the Bearcat would've appeared as it does due to the design being for an exceptionally climbing interceptor
The irony is that your claim is as impossible to prove as the opposite :-)
I'd say it's reasonable to expect that a recognized "world beater" would have a greater influence on a new design than a loser like, say, the P-40.
However, there are still a couple of verifyable design features to be checked out by someone who has good documentation on the F8F. This might be a better way of tracing possible Bearcat-Focke-Wulf relations than the question of design philosophy which is hard to agree on.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I agree 100% with you HoHun that all aircraft designers learned from the works of others. I however strongly disagree with the statement of Grunherz that the F8F was designed and built as the direct result of Grummans engineers (particulalry Bob Hall) having flown an FW-190.
Grunherz, you've yet to show any evidence what so ever to support your theory (cause it certainly isn't fact). Your conjecture and proposition based on comments after test flights on a captured model is far reaching and quite unsubstantive to say the least. I guess if I squint my eyes closed enough and wish it to be then I might see the resemblance. And maybe if someone could turn out the lights to get the right effect I could be convinced.
IF an aircraft manufacturer had flown a DO-335 and a year later came out with a similar heavy fighter utilising a pusher/puller combo.. you'd be right.
IF an aircraft manufactuer rep had flown a 190-D9 and the next model they made used an inverted inline engine with a cowl mounted radiator...you'd be right.
As to why Grumman needed to make the lighter F8F? Well look at the requirements; "..The design goals included unparalleled agility, unprecedented acceleration, high rate of climb, excellent low level performance and the ability to operate off of every carrier from the upcoming Midway class down to the smallest escort carrier." Doesn't sound like an FW to me at all. They needed a fast climbing fighter with performance beyond just about everything the Japanese had or could possibly be developing.
I think you're putting too much into Bob Hall having flown the FW and then the F8F design. I remind you he was also the lead engineer at Gibson Brothers and was an old hand at slapping huge radials on tiny airframes.
(http://aerofiles.com/geebee-z.jpg)
I imagine next someone will propose that the since F/A-18 is based on one of the design proposals seen on the Luft'46 website ;)
(http://www.avweb.com/articles/pelperch/graphics/pp38_three_cats.jpg)
Westy
(Funkedup, the engine mounting and exhaust routing/venting is essentially the same as on the F6F. It was simply the same engine used and the proven design worked. All they did was move the cooler, and the associated plumbing, from under the engine to the wing roots. Did Grumman redesign thier F6F after looking at the 190 too?)
-
I wonder what kind of impression would a looker get from that picture if the F8F is in the backround and the F6F in the foreground :)
gripen
-
Grunherz,
The F8F was not a replacement for the F6F or F4U. It was a replacement for the FM-2 which was in service on carriers as a "light" interceptor right up until wars end.
-
FYI (anyone who's curious) here is what the other two planes were in competition with Grumman for the USN needs:
(http://aerofiles.com/curt-xf14c.jpg)
Curtiss XF14C http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/aircraft/xf14c.htm
(http://aerofiles.com/boe-xf8b1.jpg)
Boeing XF8B-1 http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/aircraft/xf8b-1.htm
-
OMG!!!!! Douglas copied the FW-190 back in 1942 also when they designed the BTD-1.
(and the XF7F Tigercat which was ordered by the USN in June of 1941. Same small cowl, slim engine bacelle with the same exhaust system used by the F6F anf F8F. Maybe FW borrowed the idea from Grumman? oh lordy, bite my tongue!!! ;) )
-
Then F6F Hellcat is small to you as well Steven?
No, I do not consider the Hellcat a small airframe and I do not consider the Corsair as being a small airframe either. However, the idea behind the Corsair was an attempt to match a large engine to a small airframe. This is supposedly the idea the Bearcat copied from the FW as you sometimes state, but I differ and say this idea has been around for a long time. It was there with the Corsair, with the GB racer and even harking back to WW1. Otherwise, the physical similarities between the Bearcat and FW aren't there more than with any other aircraft. Had the Bearcat not needed the strength for CV operations, it would've probably been even smaller than it is or an attempt to make it smaller.
You argue furny. Yes, the Corsair's wings were bent so as to avoid the prop from hitting the ground. The answers were either longer landing gear which is a bad idea for a CV aircraft or bend the wings. It's funny that you say the wings were bent to shorten the landing gear...which is a truth but not the whole picture.
Kurt tank didnt invent F8F, but he invented the plane that F8F was based on.
Ever since you made this statement, you've been dancing all around. Basically, no... the FW is not the basis for the Bearcat.
-
Look at those lightweight figters the navy was asking for!!!!
:D
Why didnt Grumman get that memo?
Now look I think the FW190 strongly influenced Grummans design direction on Bearcat while some of you guys dont and others yey just wanna make fun of Kurt Tank for some reason.
Guess thats the only place this is going.
-
The initial question was:
"Does the F8F Have a Place Here?"
Answer the question, let's stop this trivial arguing.
-
Originally posted by eddiek
"Does the F8F Have a Place Here?"
Answer the question,
Don't you think the question was pretty much answered?
-Sikboy