Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums
 



Go Back   Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums > World War II - Aviation > Aviation

Aviation Discussion on the aircraft of WWII.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-22-2005, 02:52 AM   #31
Anonymous
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAVIDICUS
Captain Lunatic,

Mosquitoman already set me straight regarding Korea.

I see several references on the web (as I'm sure you have too) listing the cruise speed as 222mph. The A-26 used R-2800's as well and its cruise speed is universally listed at about 280mph. Can you shed some light on this?
Well, it is kinda hard because operational cruising speeds are usually somewhat mission dependant. If the plane is to be flying close escort, the cruising speed often listed is what was necessary to pace the bombers. If it's flying ground attack, the cruising speed listed often reflects a plane loaded up with external ordinance. In the pilots handbook for the F7F, cruising speed is listed as about 180 mph for all loading conditions - which really makes no sense. Surely a fighter configuration, clean except for a single 300 lbs drop tank should cruise a lot faster than the bomber configuration carrying 4,000 lbs of bombs slung under the belly and wings???

In general, R-2800 powered planes seem to have had a cruising speed of around 270-280 mph, so it is pretty reasonable to assume that this would be true of the F7F as well. In fact, given its rather clean lines and laminar flow wings, you'd really expect it to have a faster cruising speed than the P-47D. The P-47N cruising speed was about 330 mph.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAVIDICUS
As far as seeing combat in WWII:

"Actually, I have found that the F7F-3P did fly a few operational sorties (I assume these were photo recon) with the USMC in WWII. One was also used for combat trials by the 787 squadron, RAF, starting in Feb. 1945."

"Photo recon" and one used for "combat trials" by the RAF? Hell, F7F pilots flying water tanker duty to fight fires saw more combat than that.
I didn't say it was much action, or that combat was actually engaged with the enemy (in WWII), though it is most likely it did with the Brits who were known to take one new plane out in a squadron for combat service trials with solid protection from established types. The point is it did fly operational sorties, and it flew combat sorties in Korea.

=S=

Lunatic
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2005, 12:21 AM   #32
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 584
Hi there Udet, the article I've quoted from is actually from a Feb. 2001 copy of 'Aeroplane' magazine, as an obituary to John Golley, who died 16 Nov. 2003, and was written by Bill Gunston....
It does appear the incident referred to may have been to do with the Ardennes Offensive, but as I haven't as yet read the book he wrote, ''Day of the Typhoon', I can't at this point shed any further light on it...I'm not too up-to-speed on the Panzer Divisions, but took note of the article due to my ancestor's Typhoon involvement.....I do concur with you that the Fw-190 F's were also very competent at the low-flying attack role, a role that a lot of the powerful and manoevrable single-seat fighters were used for at some stage of their respective operational careers, Spits, Thunderbolts, Mustangs etc...but my feeling for the Typhoon is as stated, based on their service and losses in this role....The Fw-190 was a superlative aircraft in my opinion, and stands as the Luftwaffe equivalent to the Typhoon.......

Interesting discussion between Davidicus and RG on the F7F....I've got Capt. Eric Brown's assessment of this great aircraft on hand here, and although he doesn't comment on the ''cruise speed'', as RG commented in his last post, it's alot to do with the particular mission.....In the specs, Capt. Brown has 402 mph @ 15,000 ft. as ''combat speed'', where there is usually the cruise speed, and sights 439 mph @ 22,100 ft. as the max. speed...
What to me is surprising is this aircraft first test flew on 1st April 1940, was VERY fast for it's day, and had a rocket-like climb [4,460 ft/min in the specs], and after extensive tests and mods, by June 1941 the US Navy had two, dubbed XF7F-1 'Tigercat' by then, and underwent carrier trials, but the Navy decided they were 'too heavy and too hot' and the US Marines had a go....
The RN tested them at Farnborough, and the problem they had on carriers was the props could cut the arrester-wires when hard-braking on landing due to nose-wheel compression, and their single-engine handling.
Capt. Brown's summary was real interesting [for me] because he compared the F7F to the Sea Hornet, the then RN Carrier twin, and states the F7F was superior to the S.Hornet in deck landing mainly on the strength of good take-off characteristics, it's tricycle undercart arrangement, slightly better lateral control on approach and improved power-on stalling characteristics.....It was however inferior to the Hornet, in mainly because of it's critical CG restriction on effective elevator travel during the approach and it's dangerous baulked landing longitudinal trim change. Regretably, while the F7F's tri-undercart and power-boosted rudder were useful contributions to the general problem of landing on a carrier deck with a twin, on one engine it wasn't ! -Also, the F7F was only 4 knots slower than the Hornet....Hmmmmm......

The US Marine Corps first F7F Sqn., VMF[N]-533 was fated to reach Okinawa on 14 Aug. 1945, the day before the surrender, but carried out Occupation duties, but were active in Korea in ground-attack, nightfighting, combat air patrols, photo-recce and escort duties with B-29's, providing pre-strike anti-aircraft defence attacks......One F7F-3N flown by M/Sgt. Olsen & T/Sgt. Frederick was credited with destroying an entire enemy convoy......

I really like the F7F and feel it was a real shame they never got it into WWII proper......
Attached Images
File Type: jpg raf_487__nz__sqn._-_on_the_hunt..._530.jpg (16.1 KB, 200 views)
Gemhorse is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2005, 01:21 AM   #33
Anonymous
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Me too. It was a nimble twin engine fighter with increadible climb and unbelievable firepower. Can you imagine the same fire power as a Tempest plus a P-51B in one plane?

=S=

Lunatic
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2005, 01:44 AM   #34
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 584
Yeah, the more I read, the more I'm surprised at the number of really fine aircraft that were designed, built, but not deployed....
It's great that there's still some F7F's around though, I've read of their exploits at Reno, but they are still a firm favourite in Warbird events....y'never know, with all the rebuilds going on, some of them will inevitably be re-produced, it's starting to happen, like Flugwerk with the Fw-190's, and Yaks too...You guys have such great resources over there to do this, it's set to become an industry within an industry.......

Gemhorse
Gemhorse is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:15 PM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0
Ad Management plugin by RedTyger
Design by HTWoRKS


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118