SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
It works this time!
F8F Bearcat derived from FW190?
- Thread starter Navalwarrior
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Bearcats initial design was very similar to final, and apparently done before Grumman had the chance to look at a 190 up close.
thanlont.blogspot.com
Furthermore just what did Grumman allegedly copy? The funny wing twist? Some of the structural quirks? The cooling/cowling?
The Conception of the F8F Bearcat
The interweb would have you believe that the F8F Bearcat resulted from a Grumman evaluation of the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 accomplished in early 1...
thanlont.blogspot.com
Furthermore just what did Grumman allegedly copy? The funny wing twist? Some of the structural quirks? The cooling/cowling?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
If anything, the F8F's design was influenced by US Navy veteran pilot's input.
Shortround6
Major General
It's true, I read it on the internet!
Thumpalumpacus
Captain
I bet complaints about poor climb got some desks pounded.
R Leonard
Staff Sergeant
Properly prepared, on a good day, with good pilots, the F8F climb to time could indeed be remarkable.
November 22, 1946 . . . Cleveland Air Show . . . Operation Pogostick . . . two F8F-1 from TacTest at the NAS Patuxent NATC are prepared for climbs to 10000 feet. Both aircraft have the WEP safety interlock bypassed allowing WEP with wheels down, something standard configuration does not allow. Both aircraft are otherwise standard, armed, but no ammo, with about 50% fuel. Each is equipped with what was called a "theater" installed behind the pilot's seat. 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. 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.
In this particular instance, the cameras were calibrated by National Aeronautics Association for the climb attempts. By reviewing the film it became relatively academic to determine the time take to reach 10000 feet or 3000 meters, which ever you wanted to look at.
First to go was CDR Bill Leonard, Projects Director at TacTest, from a dead stop to 10K feet in 100.0 seconds, including a 150 foot take off run. LCDR Butch Davenport, F8F Projects Officer at TacTest, came along about 30 minutes later and set the next new record of 97.8 seconds, including a 115 foot take off run. Leonard's take off was into an estimated 30 knot head wind, by the time Davenport took off the head wind was over 40 knots. This higher wind speed helped to reduce Davenport's time on the ground. I have never seen Davenport's pilot's log book, but I have Leonard's in my possession. It shows his run and earlier practice runs made at TacTest in preparation.
Being once challenged in my reporting of this event I once took, in December 2003, the extra step of contacting the NAA, the result being this from Art Greenfield, then, Director, Contest and Records, National Aeronautic Association:
It is too bad that the international climb-to-time record category was not established until 1950; after first being proposed for inclusion by the US's National Aeronautic Association at the June 1950 Fédération Aéronautique Internationale General Conference. According to Thierry Montigneaux, of the FAI, "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 31 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." The pilot of the Meteor was Flt Lt Richard B Prickett; his time to 3000 meters was 75.5 seconds.
So, in 1946 there was no "World Record" class for climb to time.
The rapid climb to altitude was the F8F's bread and butter. The plane was to have been one of the solutions to the kamikaze problem ... rapid climbs capability, firepower, speed, and more (better) maneuverability than the F6F or F4U.
November 22, 1946 . . . Cleveland Air Show . . . Operation Pogostick . . . two F8F-1 from TacTest at the NAS Patuxent NATC are prepared for climbs to 10000 feet. Both aircraft have the WEP safety interlock bypassed allowing WEP with wheels down, something standard configuration does not allow. Both aircraft are otherwise standard, armed, but no ammo, with about 50% fuel. Each is equipped with what was called a "theater" installed behind the pilot's seat. 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. 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.
In this particular instance, the cameras were calibrated by National Aeronautics Association for the climb attempts. By reviewing the film it became relatively academic to determine the time take to reach 10000 feet or 3000 meters, which ever you wanted to look at.
First to go was CDR Bill Leonard, Projects Director at TacTest, from a dead stop to 10K feet in 100.0 seconds, including a 150 foot take off run. LCDR Butch Davenport, F8F Projects Officer at TacTest, came along about 30 minutes later and set the next new record of 97.8 seconds, including a 115 foot take off run. Leonard's take off was into an estimated 30 knot head wind, by the time Davenport took off the head wind was over 40 knots. This higher wind speed helped to reduce Davenport's time on the ground. I have never seen Davenport's pilot's log book, but I have Leonard's in my possession. It shows his run and earlier practice runs made at TacTest in preparation.
Being once challenged in my reporting of this event I once took, in December 2003, the extra step of contacting the NAA, the result being this from Art Greenfield, then, Director, Contest and Records, National Aeronautic Association:
It is too bad that the international climb-to-time record category was not established until 1950; after first being proposed for inclusion by the US's National Aeronautic Association at the June 1950 Fédération Aéronautique Internationale General Conference. According to Thierry Montigneaux, of the FAI, "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 31 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." The pilot of the Meteor was Flt Lt Richard B Prickett; his time to 3000 meters was 75.5 seconds.
So, in 1946 there was no "World Record" class for climb to time.
The rapid climb to altitude was the F8F's bread and butter. The plane was to have been one of the solutions to the kamikaze problem ... rapid climbs capability, firepower, speed, and more (better) maneuverability than the F6F or F4U.
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
edited
Barrett
Senior Airman
I was present when Bob Hall related his experience with the FW 190 ref. the F8F. He spoke at a meeting of the American Fighter Aces Assn.
Barrett
Senior Airman
Excellent insight Rich, as always.
I knew Butch Davenport well, via Marion Carl's Patuxent River guys. AS I RECALL (Boomer memory alert) Butch's flight was the next day with a temperature advantage. I had his daughter's contact info a few years ago but no reply.
drgondog
Major
Both airframes sported NACA 230xx airfoils but the F8F was 'fatter'.
Dimensionally they were close but the primary differences IMO were determined by the F8F primary missions - Carrier ops, Jeep Carrier suitable, climb like hell. Ergo, more power, more wing area, fatter wing in same family (NACA 23018 vs 23015.5) with higher CLmax (and more drag) -combined with huge Fin for low speed control authority.
If Grumman adopted same scheme as FW 190 with leading edge twist ending at 80% span, that would have gotten my attention but F8F didn't (wisely)
Grumman template more likely was to build a super F4F from scratch, than copy a FW 190 or skinny down F6F.
GregP
Major
Hi Barrett.
Since you were present when Bob Hall spoke, what did he say? How about a short summary?
Thanks, and cheers!
Last edited:
pinehilljoe
Senior Airman
- 673
- May 1, 2016
The F8F looks like Mr Grumman asked his designers to build the smallest airframe around the biggest engine with heritage from the F6F.
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
This is the way I've always understood the reason for the F8F to exist.
It was, basically, the F6F put on a diet, creating, as Joe stated so eliquently...The smallest airframe around the largest engine.
You could say the same for the FM-2, which was based on the experimental F4F-8. Again, reengineered to create a smaller, lighter airframe around a larger, more powerful engine.
...and climb benefitted there, as well (2300 vs. 3650).
You could even take this "philosophy" all the way back to the BF-109, which was the 108, already a light airframe, mated with a bigger engine.
It's like some people say, "what was the auto industry thinking?!", when contemplating the muscle cars of the 1960's...look at the aircraft industry. They've been doing it for YEARS.
Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 38,344
- Mar 26, 2007
I suggest you look up 1940 race cars. You will find that for racing the always meted the most powerfull en light engine a a frame as light they deared to make
I think its the other way around. Look at planes round 1935 not much different then those in the great war
Good call on the F8F.
The FM-2 was not smaller than the F4F, and the R-1820 engine it used was not larger than the R-1830. Part of the lightness came from reduction of guns, from 6 to 4. Granted, the R-1820 version used on the FM-2 was making a bit better power than the R-1830s used on the F4F.
edit: BTW - let's debunk a piece of propaganda from everyone's favorite Kurt:
The Messerschmitt 109 [sic] and the British Spitfire, the two fastest fighters in the world at the time we began work on the Fw 190, could both be summed up as a very large engine on the front of the smallest possible airframe; in each case armament had been added almost as an afterthought.
This is exactly how the Fw 190 came about - install a very large engine on the front of the smallest possible airframe, the BMW 139 being about twice the weight and power of the Jumo 210 or Kestrel (engines that propelled the 1st Bf 109s) on a fighter whose wing was smaller than what 109 had.
Initial Fw 190 concepts didn't featured some great firepower, sometimes even limiting to two LMGs and two HMGs, by what time Spitfire was firmly in 8 LMG land, and Bf 109 was flying with cannons installed.
Last edited:
The biggest visual difference between a Bearcat and a Sea Fury is the paint job. Underneath the paint job they have nothing in common.
GregP
Major
I think the niggest difference is size. The Bearcat is small; the Sea Fury is large.
But, it's all in the eye of the beholder ...
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
To be honest, the Sea Fury looks more like a KI-100.
