Generations

[Wmaker]

Published climb data is for MIL power, not WEP. Around 4,500 fpm in MIL power, jumping to nearly 6,000 fpm in WEP with 375 gallons of fuel at takeoff.

Hmm...I don't recall seeing any documentation giving 6000fpm climb rate.

Here's published figures for War Emergency Power: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f7f/F7F-1_Airplane_Characteristics_Performance.pdf

They list 4360fpm with 426 gallons of fuel onboard.

I doubt a 51 gallon decrease in fuel load would produce 1640fpm increase in climbrate.

[GScholz]

Awesome photos Widewing. Thanks for sharing!

[Ack-Ack]

Even scarier to think that some Peashooters went up in the Philippines alongside those early P40s against the Japanese

A couple of Filipino pilots even scored a couple of kills in the Peashooter.

ack-ack

[Widewing]

Hmm...I don't recall seeing any documentation giving 6000fpm climb rate.

Here's published figures for War Emergency Power: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f7f/F7F-1_Airplane_Characteristics_Performance.pdf

They list 4360fpm with 426 gallons of fuel onboard.

I doubt a 51 gallon decrease in fuel load would produce 1640fpm increase in climbrate.

That figure is for the XF7F-1. Further down in the document is the climb chart for the F7F-1, which attained 4,250 fpm in MIL power (the production aircraft had a newer, high activity prop). In October 1945, the Navy did a test with an F7F-3. From a standing start, the aircraft reached 10,000 feet in 104 seconds. That's an average of 5,769 fpm, including the takeoff roll. An F8F-1 was also tested the same way (in 1946). From a standing start, it reached 10,000 ft in 96 seconds. This record stood unbeaten until Rare Bear edged it out (91.9 seconds, IIRC). That's averaging 6,250 fpm (including the takeoff roll). Like the F7F-3, this was an unmodified F8F-1, carrying ballast equal to the weight of MG ammo.

[Wmaker]

That figure is for the XF7F-1. Further down in the document is the climb chart for the F7F-1, which attained 4,250 fpm in MIL power (the production aircraft had a newer, high activity prop).

If the document would list XF7F-1 figures, shouldn't it read XF7F-1 instead of F7F-1?

Actually it lists the different weight configs/powersettings as 1-8 in the tables, "1" being the War Emergency rating/full internal fuel. In the climb chart it lists the only climb curve exceeding 4000fpm as "1". Also, looking at the chart it indicates 4360fpm, not 4250fpm which indeed was the listed climb rate of the XF7F-1. I think it is very clearly meaning WEP-rating for the highest climb rate.

[Gianlupo]

You'll like these...

For a moment, there, you had me... when I saw that G.55 I thought it was in the US... then I saw the Albatross' tail in background and realized it's the one at the Italian Air Force historical museum at Vigna di Valle!

Great pictures, Widewing, thanks!

[Brooke]

The Navy's chief test pilot called the F7F, "the best fighter I ever flew", and he flew them all.

Did he give any details on F7F vs. F8F?  I'd love to know how those two stacked up against each other in the view of someone who flew both of them.

[Widewing]

If the document would list XF7F-1 figures, shouldn't it read XF7F-1 instead of F7F-1?

Actually it lists the different weight configs/powersettings as 1-8 in the tables, "1" being the War Emergency rating/full internal fuel. In the climb chart it lists the only climb curve exceeding 4000fpm as "1". Also, looking at the chart it indicates 4360fpm, not 4250fpm which indeed was the listed climb rate of the XF7F-1. I think it is very clearly meaning WEP-rating for the highest climb rate.

If you look at the data relative to the aircraft serial number, you'll see what I'm talking about.

[RTHolmes]

... An F8F-1 was also tested the same way (in 1946). From a standing start, it reached 10,000 ft in 96 seconds.

When you let that sink in ... for a prop plane that really is remarkable. wow.


edit: and to illustrate just how much things have moved on, a eurofighter fuelled and armed as an interceptor takes about that long from rest to 40k ...

[Wmaker]

If you look at the data relative to the aircraft serial number, you'll see what I'm talking about.

There's no serial numbers listed in that document that I can see?

[Widewing]

There's no serial numbers listed in that document that I can see?

You are correct. Try this one:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f7f/XF7F-1.pdf

[Gianlupo]

Unfortunately, not everywhere in the world people appreciates old planes.... there are Third World countries (like Italy) where something like this can happen:

http://volosportivo.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/vergogna-della-piu-profonda/

I'm ashamed of this country....

[715]

Gotta be a bit tough to slow down in an 86 enough to hang with that Peashooter

In the first picture you can see the F86 has a few degrees of flaps dialed in.

[Wmaker]

You are correct. Try this one:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f7f/XF7F-1.pdf

Yep, that doc lists an F7F-1 (No.80262) having an inital climb rate of 4250fpm at military power. WEP increases the total power output by ~600hp.

I must say that, without any documentation regarding the time-to-climb test to 10000ft, I just can't see 1750fpm increase climb rate obtainable with a power increase from 4200hp to 4800hp.

At WEP this F7F-1 would have a power loading of 4.46lbs/hp which is slightly better than Spitfire Mk.XIV at 18lbs power setting for example (4.60lbs). When Spitfire manages an 4700fpm initial climb rate, 6000fpm from F7F-1 is very very hard to believe without any detailed documentation. The prop effiency and the contours behind the prop obviously have a great deal of effect here but the difference is so huge. I haven't been able to find any proper documention for this experiment, I'd really be interested in reading about it further.

(Spitfire docs here: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-XIV.html)

[Widewing]

Yep, that doc lists an F7F-1 (No.80262) having an inital climb rate of 4250fpm at military power. WEP increases the total power output by ~600hp.

I must say that, without any documentation regarding the time-to-climb test to 10000ft, I just can't see 1750fpm increase climb rate obtainable with a power increase from 4200hp to 4800hp.

At WEP this F7F-1 would have a power loading of 4.46lbs/hp which is slightly better than Spitfire Mk.XIV at 18lbs power setting for example (4.60lbs). When Spitfire manages an 4700fpm initial climb rate, 6000fpm from F7F-1 is very very hard to believe without any detailed documentation. The prop effiency and the contours behind the prop obviously have a great deal of effect here but the difference is so huge. I haven't been able to find any proper documention for this experiment, I'd really be interested in reading about it further.

(Spitfire docs here: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-XIV.html)

I think that the missing item is the Navy's change-over to AN-F-33 115/145 octane fuel. It was required for the C series R-2800s to reach maximum combat boost safely, and beginning in late April of 1945, 115/145 entered the fleet distribution system. Those aircraft requiring it included the F4U-4, F8F-1 and the two F7F versions in service. The F8F and F7F that set the climb records were doing so with the 115/145 fuel and at least 72" of MAP.