Author Topic: Grumman Rules the Sky  (Read 14526 times)

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
Grumman Rules the Sky
« on: December 13, 2013, 01:34:47 PM »
Great video. Where else can you see five F8Fs in formation. The Grumman heritage formation is terrific. Note that the F8F-2 is smaller than the FM-2, with twice the power and a high activity prop. No wonder a stock Bearcat held the time to climb record for prop aircraft for decades (a modified F8F-2 hold it now).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSdx1g6nDTg&list=UUFsBr8DyE5BBMxTgCl3H7ag
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline J.A.W.

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Grumman Rules the Sky
« Reply #1 on: December 13, 2013, 03:09:52 PM »
Yeah.. the airshow stunt  climb 'record' - that was a 'record' - only in the loosest sense...

The actual service acceptance test stats show that a number of other recip fighters
had quicker mil-spec climb rates & in a similar stunt set-up  would do better too..

See.. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Hornet/Hornet_I_Climb_AFDS.jpg

I note that the official record attained (& both unofficial & official record F8Fs were modified)
has been dropped from the FAI books now..

Anyone got a budget to set a new one?
« Last Edit: December 13, 2013, 03:15:34 PM by J.A.W. »
"Cybermen don't make promises..
Such ideas have no value."

Offline J.A.W.

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Grumman Rules the Sky
« Reply #2 on: December 13, 2013, 03:25:13 PM »
& if ol' cigar chompin' Curtiss Le May had been keen on stunts,
he could've ordered his techs to prep a trick pony & dust off them salty boys..

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-booklet-pg15.jpg

"Cybermen don't make promises..
Such ideas have no value."

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: Grumman Rules the Sky
« Reply #3 on: December 13, 2013, 04:10:02 PM »
Yeah.. the airshow stunt  climb 'record' - that was a 'record' - only in the loosest sense...

The actual service acceptance test stats show that a number of other recip fighters
had quicker mil-spec climb rates & in a similar stunt set-up  would do better too..

See.. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Hornet/Hornet_I_Climb_AFDS.jpg

I note that the official record attained (& both unofficial & official record F8Fs were modified)
has been dropped from the FAI books now..

Anyone got a budget to set a new one?
You gonna post any supporting evidence for this claim or are you planning on just going with the "If I keep saying it it has to gain credibility" tactic?

Right now Widewing has orders of magnitude more credibility than you do.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline J.A.W.

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Grumman Rules the Sky
« Reply #4 on: December 13, 2013, 04:55:06 PM »
It not a claim its a fact.. .

& its been discussed here in another thread already..

See post #321 in the 'Best Heavy Fighter' thread.

& there is no call to keep over-personalising things..

"..orders of magnitude more credibility than you.." type crap..

Just keep to the established facts & an evidence-based discussion on them, thanks..

By all means bring some good data to support your case..
« Last Edit: December 13, 2013, 05:04:58 PM by J.A.W. »
"Cybermen don't make promises..
Such ideas have no value."

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Re: Grumman Rules the Sky
« Reply #5 on: December 13, 2013, 05:11:05 PM »
By all means bring some good data to support your case..

Yes please do, as all you bring is blah blah blah one liners.

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
Re: Grumman Rules the Sky
« Reply #6 on: December 13, 2013, 05:14:19 PM »
It not a claim its a fact.. .

& its been discussed here in another thread already..

The only argument you made was that F8F took off into a strong headwind. Inasmuch as the duty runway is usually determined by the wind, so what? Ever fly out of Cleveland? There's usually a good breeze off of the lake. All the headwind would do is shorten the takeoff roll by, perhaps, one to two seconds.

The Navy mechanics enabled combat power with the wheels down (simply bypassing a microswitch).

Other than that, it was a standard F8F-1, and from a standing start, passed 10,000 feet in less than 1.6 minutes. There wasn't another prop fighter on earth in 1946 that could come close to that. It took almost 20 years to beat it, and it was barely edged out by a highly modified F8F-2, Rare Bear. That record still stands.

Now how do you classify that as a stunt?
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline J.A.W.

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Grumman Rules the Sky
« Reply #7 on: December 13, 2013, 05:20:37 PM »
I 'll have to put you on my ignore list too, m.m. - unless you tone down the hostile trolling..

& Ww, the stunt F8F load-out was light, & the WEP fit out was non mil-spec too..

As previously noted the USAF was jet-bent..

& just ignored the 'record' as a an airshow stunt, employing an obsolescent (in their view) bird..

Check those `51H climb rate boost/weight figures, the USAF could've taken it - if they wanted to..

As could've  the RAF, in a hot-rod Hornet or Sabre-Fury, but they were jet-bent too..
« Last Edit: December 13, 2013, 05:23:23 PM by J.A.W. »
"Cybermen don't make promises..
Such ideas have no value."

Offline J.A.W.

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Grumman Rules the Sky
« Reply #8 on: December 13, 2013, 05:33:44 PM »
Anyone with aeronautical knowledge care to discuss the effect on climb rate of
flying into a stiff headwind ?

Isn't it like the effect of a tailwind on IAS vs ground speed?

Don't real record attempts put  factor limits on wind speed assistance?
« Last Edit: December 13, 2013, 05:35:21 PM by J.A.W. »
"Cybermen don't make promises..
Such ideas have no value."

Offline pembquist

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1928
Re: Grumman Rules the Sky
« Reply #9 on: December 13, 2013, 05:49:22 PM »
Anyone with aeronautical knowledge care to discuss the effect on climb rate of
flying into a stiff headwind ?

Isn't it like the effect of a tailwind on IAS vs ground speed?

Don't real record attempts put  factor limits on wind speed assistance?

The effect on climb rate of flying into, across, or with the direction of the wind is zero. In a time to climb test taking off into the wind will shorten your ground roll/acceleration to flying airspeed time but that is it.

Are you thinking angle of climb? Because with a headwind that will be steeper. You will get to the same altitude at the same time no matter what the wind (ignoring take off role,)  but the distance you travel over the earth will be different with different winds.








Pies not kicks.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: Grumman Rules the Sky
« Reply #10 on: December 13, 2013, 05:56:01 PM »
It not a claim its a fact.. .

& its been discussed here in another thread already..

See post #321 in the 'Best Heavy Fighter' thread.

& there is no call to keep over-personalising things..

"..orders of magnitude more credibility than you.." type crap..

Just keep to the established facts & an evidence-based discussion on them, thanks..

By all means bring some good data to support your case..
Yes, you claimed it there too.  As I said, you're claiming it repeatedly like that makes it more believable.  What you don't seem to be able to do is post any supporting evidence of your claim.  Because you can't do that your claim is being disregarded as mere talk.

Post the supporting data.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline J.A.W.

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Grumman Rules the Sky
« Reply #11 on: December 13, 2013, 06:02:40 PM »
Knak, do you read the data - like in the links [# 1,2..this thread] posted?

If you did  - you would see  that the mil-spec climb rate for a `51H at low weight/high boost is
clearly high enough to make an attempt on a stunt climb 'record' - & esp' if tricked out too..

Like-wise the hottest Brit recip's could too..
"Cybermen don't make promises..
Such ideas have no value."

Offline J.A.W.

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Grumman Rules the Sky
« Reply #12 on: December 13, 2013, 06:19:09 PM »
 Rich & famous stunt flier Howard Hughes could have got his hands on a 109K,
pulled the needless mil-spec junk out of it, run it at high boost on 150 grade juice
 & taken that 'record' - if he'd wanted to..

Actually, is it true that the USAF got pissed off with him - for messing around with a 262?
"Cybermen don't make promises..
Such ideas have no value."

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
Re: Grumman Rules the Sky
« Reply #13 on: December 13, 2013, 06:25:22 PM »
The son of Cdr Leonard, who flew one of two F8F-1s involved in the record flights commented on the same argument J.A.W. is making now...


"I am often amazed at the contortions exercised by those, who were probably, at best, babes in arms at the time of events past, or, more likely, not even a gleam in someone’s eye, to denigrate or cast aspersions, in of course their apparent expert opinion, when the events in question do not meet their preconceived notions. It is certainly gratifying to see so many skilled F8F drivers and experienced military/naval test pilots wade in with their insights. And that is about as polite as I can put it.

Let see . . . entries from Leonard pilot’s log book for November 1946 . . .

5 Nov - - F8F-1 b/n 90438 - - pilot remarks: “test climb to 10000. 2:15 to get up 1:55 to get down (wheels touching)”

8 Nov - - F8F-1 b/n 94803 - - pilot remarks: “test climb 2 mins 15 secs to 10000 from standing start - military power”

8 Nov - - F8F-1 b/n 90438 - - pilot remarks: “test for combat power. Torquemeter reading 113 and 108”

15 Nov - - F8F-1 b/n 94880 - - pilot remarks: “test combat power and general handling for climb test. 1 climb 10000 ft - 2 min”

20 Nov - - F8F-1 b/n 94880 - - pilot remarks: “Patux to Cleveland on Air Show Duty. Operation Pogo Stick”

22 Nov - - F8F-1 b/n 94880 - - pilot remarks: “climb standing start to 10000 feet 1 min 40 seconds record take off 150 feet”

As an aside, at the completion of this particular flight, Leonard had totaled 1681.6 hours. 635.3 of those were recorded in a log book lost aboard USS Yorktown in June 1942. Of the 1046.3 Midway-forward hours, all but 92.3 were in fighter types. His first flight in an F8F was on 22 Dec 1945 at NAS Patuxent, oddly enough, in b/n 90438 mentioned above.

And no, contrary to one apparent expert opinion, this was not a hold a stop watch in the other hand as the plane passes through 10000 feet.

Behind the pilot was installed a piece of equipment called a “theater”. This was a small instrument board, about one foot square, that had as it’s most important feature a movie camera that recorded time, altitude, and various goings on in the cockpit. This camera was calibrated by NAA personnel for the attempts at the Cleveland Air Show. By reviewing the film it was relatively academic to determine the time take to reach 10000 feet or 3000 meters, which ever you wanted to look at. The camera was actuated thusly: The pilot taxied the airplane to his starting point and flipped a switch to activate the camera. At that point, when the pilot releases his brakes, another switch is automatically thrown and the camera starts recording events. Simple, eh? These pilots and airplanes were from TacTest where testing airplane performance was what they did. The list of airplanes they were operating in the 1945-1950 period is lengthy and included German, Japanese, British as well as American. It was not unusual to have this “theater” equipment installed as a matter of course and it was their job to push their mounts to the limit.

Years ago, having tired of dealing with experts, an inquiry made to the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale produced the following from Thierry Montigneaux, Assistant Secretary General of the at FAI:
“The 'time to climb' record category was proposed to FAI by the National Aeronautic Association of the USA at the June 1950 FAI General Conference. It was then added to the Sporting Code.

“The first mention of a 'time to climb' world record in our books was for a flight made by a British pilot onboard a Gloster Meteor on 31th August 1951.

“No performance set in 1946 could therefore have qualified as an official ‘world’ record, as this category of record did not exist then. However, it may well be that the NAA had accepted a category of ‘national records’ for time-to-climb prior to their June 1950 proposal to FAI.”

So, in 1946 there was no “World Record” class for climb to time. No wonder no one can find one.

An inquiry to the National Aeronautic Association produced this response from Art Greenfield, Director, Contest and Records:

“It's difficult to determine from the file, but the U.S. national record in 1946 was either ‘Fastest Climb to 10,000 Feet,’ or ‘Time to Climb 3,000 Meters.’ The switch from feet to meters occurred around that time, presumably to gain acceptance from the international community at FAI.

“In any event, both performances were calculated and the time to 10,000 feet was 97.8 seconds; the time to 3,000 meters (9,843 feet) was 96.1 seconds.

“The record I quoted was set by LCDR M.W. Davenport in a Bearcat on November 22, 1946, in Cleveland."

And lastly, one evening before his passing, whilst pondering the remains of dinner, I took the opportunity to raise this subject of this long ago event with Bill Leonard, the same Cdr. Leonard who made the attempt prior to Davenport’s record. He confirmed that the only performance modification to the F8F’s was to bypass the safety lock on the emergency war power setting to allow water injection with the landing gear in the down position. These were standard F8F’s. His plane was armed, with ammo, armor in place, and loaded with 50% fuel. Butch Davenport’s F8F was configured the same only without the ammunition.

Last, obviously, I have the log book where Leonard’s flight is recorded.

Good enough? Sorry if that doesn’t match an expert analysis of internet posted performance statistics, I can't help that. Guess short of being there (and I wasn't even a gleam at the time), an official record as recorded in a pilots log and a statement from the NAA records guy will just have to do."
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline J.A.W.

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Grumman Rules the Sky
« Reply #14 on: December 13, 2013, 06:35:15 PM »
Glad you posted that Ww..

Since it puts the 'record' straight - so to speak - on your original claims about FAI records
& also records the clear deviation from stock mil-spec & low load out..

Going by the published `51H figures link-posted a competitive USAF time to climb contest
would've been on.. if they'd cared to do so..

Maybe a Buchon-109 - with a race-spec Merlin - could be a current contender to set a mark?

 
"Cybermen don't make promises..
Such ideas have no value."