# Allied Gold-Match II



## Sal Monella (Apr 22, 2005)

Soren gets credit first off as the "father" of this genre of post.

Ladies and gentlemen. In the left ring, whatever Spitfire you choose that became operational up through the conclusion of the year of our Lord, 1945.

In the right ring, whatever F8-F Bearcat you choose that became operational in the year of our Lord, 1945.

Air to air combat at 10,000, 20,000 and 30,000 feet.

May the best plane win and the loser endure a quick and painless death!


Sal Monella

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 23, 2005)

when you say 1945 do you mean actually the whole year up to december 31st or up to the end of the second world war??


----------



## Sal Monella (Apr 23, 2005)

I don't think the Bearcat saw combat. It is really sort of a post war aircraft so why don't we just round it out to December 31, 1945.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 23, 2005)

well then why not compare it to a fury??

but remember by the end of 1945 even later spits would have entered service...........


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 23, 2005)

I think the "Fury" was a biplane.  

The first production Sea Fury didn't fly until mid to late 1946.

Which was the best model of the Spit that was operational by the end of '45?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 23, 2005)

well the prototype furies had flown by the end of the war..........


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 23, 2005)

"_... that became operational up through the conclusion of the year of our Lord, 1945. "_

Yeah, I'm sure he meant "operational as a prototype."  

I'm obvioulsy inclined towards the F-8 (that powerplant makes by butt tingle)  but will reserve judgment until a contender appears.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 23, 2005)

first fury flew on sept 1 44 prototype the 2n flew 27/11/44


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 23, 2005)

It wasn't operational in 1945.

From: http://www.unlimitedair.com/Hawker_Sea_Fury_History.htm

Early in 1944, a revised naval specification, N.22/43, supplanted N.7/43. and in April 1944 contracts were placed for 200 F.2/43 planes for the RAF and 200 N.22/43 planes for the Fleet Air Arm. The first Sea Fury prototype, SR661, flew on 21 February, 1945. It was powered by a Centaurus XII engine driving a four-bladed propeller. This airplane had a deck arrester hook under the rudder, but retained fixed wings. The second Sea Fury prototype, SR666, was powered by a Centaurus XV driving a five-bladed propeller and was a fully navalized aircraft with folding wings. The prototype Sea Fury SR661 was subsequently tested for its suitability as a naval fighter, and in deck landing trials, at the A&AEE Boscombe Down in May 1945. Tests were still underway as the Japanese surrendered in August 1945.

With the end of the Second World War, the RAF cancelled all production contracts for the Fury, deciding to concentrate all of its future efforts on jet fighters. The Royal Navy reduced its order for Sea Furies to 100 aircraft, and canceled the Boulton-Paul contract in its entirety.

*The first production aircraft - a Mark 10 which was a carrier-based version, with folding wings- did not make its initial flight until September 1946.* Although originally intended to serve with both the RAF and FAA, the RAF order was cancelled at the end of the war. The first deck trials with Sea Fury TF898 began aboard HMS Victorious during the winter of 1946-47. *The Mark 10 was approved for carrier operations in Spring 1947, and five Fleet Air Arm squadrons were then equipped with the Sea Fury.* The Mark 10 was followed by the Mark 11 fighter-bomber - 615 of these were eventually delivered to the Navy. It became the Fleet Air Arm's principal single-seat fighter and remained so until the introduction of the Sea Hawk jet fighter in 1953.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 23, 2005)

in january 45 the contract had already been halved as the raf decided on the jet option in jan 45 tested deck landings with vampire hence the low proirity of sea fury


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 23, 2005)

The Sea Fury served the RCN and RAN well too, in the post-war years. I've always loved that plane.


----------



## Sal Monella (Apr 23, 2005)

Will none of you chivalristic Brits stand up for the Spitfire's honor?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 24, 2005)

well yeah of course i'm with the spit.........


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 24, 2005)

If the Spit got the Bearcat into a turning dogfight the Bearcat would be dead meat


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 24, 2005)

and the spit had better armourment..........


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 24, 2005)

assuming the F8F had .50cals of course.............


----------



## Soren (Apr 24, 2005)

Give me a Spit XXI or beyond, and in a dogfight I will blow any other piston engined fighter out of the sky !


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 24, 2005)

and some jets too.........


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 24, 2005)

Exactly, either get height and speed or get into a turning dogfight.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 25, 2005)

LOL - the Spitfire would be murdered by the Bearcat.

The Bearcat made 20k in 4.7 minutes at 59 inches of boost using the R-2800-22W (B series) engine. This gave an initail rate of climb of about 4570 fpm. This is the plane that all the typical stats for the F8F-1 erroneously come from.

The production F8F used the more powerful R-2800-34W (C series) engine, which was capable of up to 70 inches of boost, just like that in the F4U-4. It was capable of a 6000+ fpm climb and a top speed of around 445 mph. The later -2 model had an improved cowl design allowing 6400 fpm climb and 455 mph top speed.

As far as the Spit XIV outmanuvering the Bearcat - there is just no way. In 1943 the British tested the Spit V against the Hellcat and found them to be comprable in turn performance. The Spit V turned quite a bit better than the Spit XIV, where the F8F turned substantially better than the F6F. Therefore, the F8F would turn very much better than the Spit XIV.

The only place the Spit XIV would have an advantage would be at very high altitude. Below 30K or so it would be no contest.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 25, 2005)

RG,

Why would the Spitfire hold an advantage over 30K? I would have thought that the Bearcat would have waxed the Spitfire at any altitude.

And which Spitfire was the best model to become operational prior to 1946? I noticed that you mentioned the XIV.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 25, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> RG,
> 
> Why would the Spitfire hold an advantage over 30K? I would have thought that the Bearcat would have waxed the Spitfire at any altitude.
> 
> And which Spitfire was the best model to become operational prior to 1946? I noticed that you mentioned the XIV.



I doubt it would make much difference to go up to the Spit 21. The version of this plane used in WWII had the Griffon 61 or 64 with a five bladed prop. Only a few post-war units were built using the Griffon 85 and two 3 bladed contra-rotating props, and I don't know if any of these were operationally deployed or if they were produced before the end of 1945. In any case they didn't perform that much better than the Spit XIV.

The F8F supercharger was optimized for relatively low altitude - peaks being at about 17,000 and 25,000 feet. Against the Japanese there was no need to worry about higher altitudes. If you look at the BHP curves for the R-2800 (c) vs. the Griffon I posted in the original Allied Gold-Match thread (Spit XIV vs. F4U-4) you can see that the Spit power curve is likely to match the R-2800 at about 30K. Also, the 5 bladed prop has advantage at high altitude as the shorter blades will not exceed mach when the longer blades of the R-2800 start to.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Apr 25, 2005)

RG the Spit Mk.21 had an intirely new WING for christs sake !! It was thicker, stronger, and had an even better armament (4x20mm Hisp's)

The Spit Mk.21 would most likely out-turn the Bearcat, aswell as out-climb it ! (Even the Mk.XIV has an initial climb rate of over 5,000ft/min !)

And about the test with the F6F and Spit V, Source please ?! British tests showed that the Spit Mk.IX turned just as well as the Spit Mk.V, while the Mk.XIV turned just as well as the Mk.IX !! 

So there goes your theory about the Spit Mk.XIV not turning as well as the Spit Mk.V !


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 25, 2005)

yes and i fail to see how rate of climb has much of an effect on the outcome of this............


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 25, 2005)

Soren said:


> RG the Spit Mk.21 had an intirely new WING for christs sake !! It was thicker, stronger, and had an even better armament (4x20mm Hisp's)



Stronger yes... thicker no.



> The new wing was similar in plan, but was stronger, carried more fuel, housed a longer landing gear (which allowed a larger diameter propeller), and carried four 20mm cannon.
> http://www.chuckhawks.com/spitfire.htm



The Spit Mk.21 had exactly the same airfoil as virtually all of the Spitfires,



> Supermarine 368 Spitfire 21 - NACA 2213 (root), NACA 2209.4 (tip)
> Vought V-166 F4U Corsair - NACA 23015 (root), NACA 23009 (tip)
> http://www.aae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html



the only real difference being the tips were squared off.

Also, as to an earlier comment you made about the Spit wing being about the same thickness as that of the Corsair. The way the NACA numbering system works for both 4 and 5 digit wings is that the last two digits represent the thickness as a percentage of the chord. Therefore at the root the Corsair wing is 15% as opposed to 13% of chord thickness, and the chords are almost the same (the Corsair's being a little longer), but at the tip the Spitfire's is 9.4% vs. 9% for the Corsair, but the chord of the Corsair's wing is quite a bit longer so it is still thicker. The tip section for the F8F is the same as the Corsair's, but the root section is a 23018, a little bit thicker.



Soren said:


> The Spit Mk.21 would most likely out-turn the Bearcat, aswell as out-climb it ! (Even the Mk.XIV has an initial climb rate of over 5,000ft/min !)



The Spitfire 21 weighs more than the Spitfire XIV, has the same airfoil, and the same power level, and a decrease in gear ratio to 0.45:1. Here is the +21 lbs boost climb chart for it (from the 4th fighter group site):







Climb performance is not even close to 5,000 fpm. The highest climb rate I've seen quoted was 4850 fpm, no source for the data provided. Time to climb to 20,000 feet is 5.15 minutes - worse than the Spitfire XIV! The Spitfire 21 running +21 lbs boost was a half minute slower to 20,000 feet than the XF8F running at only 59 inches of boost! Even if the Spitfire 21 were to be able to manage 5000 fpm climb, it still would be over 1000 fpm slower than the Bearcat (at full boost).

The Spitifire 21 and the F8F represent totally opposite development directions. Where the Spitfire 21 represents Supermarine's efforts to move its fighter from being an interceptor to being a patrol/escort plane, the Bearcat represents Grumman's effort to evolve the Wildcat/Hellcat line from being a patrol plane to being a pure interceptor. The Spitfire's range and weight are increasing compared to its forerunners, where the Bearcat's weight and range are decreasing.

The two planes have virtually identical wing area and very close wing loadings (Spit = 243.6 sq-ft/9250 lbs, F8F = 244 sq-ft/8800 lbs), but the powerloading advantage is with the Bearcat in a big way. So how do you figure the Spit 21 is going to out-turn or out-climb the F8F. It does not make any sense at all.

The F8F had every advantage over the Spitfire 21 (except at very high altitudes), with the execption of firepower which goes to the Spitfire but not by a whole lot. The Spitfire 21 had 4 x 20mm Hispano II cannon firing at 600 rpm / gun = 2400 rpm, vs. the F8F-1 with 4 x .50 M3 BMG's firing at 1200 rpm / gun = 4800 rpm.



Soren said:


> And about the test with the F6F and Spit V, Source please ?! British tests showed that the Spit Mk.IX turned just as well as the Spit Mk.V, while the Mk.XIV turned just as well as the Mk.IX !!
> 
> So there goes your theory about the Spit Mk.XIV not turning as well as the Spit Mk.V !



Everything I've seen indicates the Spit V turned better than the IX which turned better than the XIV. Same wing.. heavier plane. I have no source (though I'll look for one) concerning the RN's comparision of the F6F-3 vs. the Spit V - just the general comment that the RN was impressed that the Hellcat could turn with the Spit (but not climb with it), and the tests were done in 1943.

While I'm looking for those tests, perhaps you can provide a reference to the Spit IX turning as well as the Spit V, or the Spit XIV turning as well as the Spit IX (which implies it turned as well as the V)? Everything I've ever read disputes this!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 25, 2005)

Didn't any of the Bearcats that became operational prior to '46 have 4x20mm's?


----------



## Soren (Apr 25, 2005)

RG Im really beginning to question your credibility as your Climb info for the Spit Mk.21 is just flat wrong, and must have been "Home made"  

The true climb rate for the Spit XXI is *7.85 min *to *30,000 ft* !! And a Max climb rate of *4800 ft/min *at 7,700 ft !

The Spit XIV with less sustained climb rate than the Spit Mk.21, has a max climb rate of 5,040 ft/min. at 2,100 ft. !



> While I'm looking for those tests, perhaps you can provide a reference to the Spit IX turning as well as the Spit V, or the Spit XIV turning as well as the Spit IX (which implies it turned as well as the V)? Everything I've ever read disputes this!



Then you havent read anything !

*Spitfire IX tactical comparison with Spitfire VC:* 

Manoeuvrability 
_The Spitfire IX was compared with a Spitfire VC for turning circles and dog-fighting at heights between 15,000 and 30,000 feet. At 15,000 feet there was little to choose between the two aircraft _

_At 30,000 feet there is still little to choose between the two aircraft in manoeurvrability, but the superiority in speed and climb of the Spitfire IX becomes outstanding. The pilot of the Spitfire VC found it difficult to maintain a steep turn without losing height, whereas the pilot of the Spitfire IX found that he had a large reserve of power which enabled him to maintain height without trouble_


*Spitfire XIV tactical comparison with Spitfire IX:*

Turning Circle
_The turning circles of both aircraft are identical._

Turning stall
_The Spitfire XIV gives less warning of a stall in a tight turn than a Spitfire IX, though the same pre-stall characteristic ("shuddering") occurs. *This is a good point as it allows sighting to be maintained nearer the stall.* This aircraft tends to come out of a dive in a similar manner to other Spitfires. _


*Spitfire XIV JF317 and Spitfire VIII test results: *

_In spite of heavier controls the Spitfire XIV is more manoeuvrable than the Spitfire VIII in turns at all heights._

_The Spitfire XIV is superior above 25,000 and with its better turning characteristics it is more than a match for the Spitfire VIII. _



> Stronger yes... thicker no.



Please don't use Chuck hawks as a source !


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 25, 2005)

Can you give the source of that data please?

Please look at the NACA wing profiles - they prove beyond any doubt that the Spit 21 wing was no thicker than the Spit XIV (or IX) wing.


----------



## Soren (Apr 25, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Can you give the source of that data please?



Take a look at the 4th Fighter-group site.

--------------------------------------

And about the Spit Mk.21:

_1. Introduction.

This report summarizes the results obtained on the prototype Mark 21 fitted with a Griffon 61 engine. 

2. Summary of Results

At an all up weight of 9000 lb. and wtih combat rating of 2750 r.p.m. and 18 lb. boost:- 

(a) Maximum level speed 455 m.p.h. at 25,600 ft. 
(b) Maximum rate of climb 4800 Ft./Min. at 7700 ft. 
(c) Time to 30,000 ft. 7.85 mins. 
(d) Service ceiling 42,800 ft. 
(e) Coolant and oil suitabilities: Full tropical under combat climb conditions. _


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 26, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> Didn't any of the Bearcats that became operational prior to '46 have 4x20mm's?



Maybe maybe not. The F8F-1b's were delivered in early 1946. There may have been some night fighter versions delivered in 1945?

However, all F8F's had universal gunbays, and could fit either .50's or M3 20mm.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 26, 2005)

Soren said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Can you give the source of that data please?
> ...



That data is Vickers tests for a prototype aircraft and it's dated May 1943! It may well be estimated performance based upon static tests.

If you page down you will find the actual test data on a real Spitfire 21 production unit conducted during the Spring and Early summer of 1945 which reads:



> Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment
> Boscombe Down
> 10 October 1945
> Spitfire F. Mk. 21 LA.187
> ...



This test clearly shows 5.15 minutes to 20K and 8.85 minutes to 30K as shown in the table I provided before.

====================



Soren said:


> RG Im really beginning to question your credibility as your Climb info for the Spit Mk.21 is just flat wrong, *and must have been "Home made"*



*Soren you can just go to hell! I used data from the SAME SOURCE YOU DID! However, unlike you who simply chose to present the best data available as fact I read through all of it and it is absolutely clear that the 1945 AAEE data from a real production plane is much more legitimate than the Vickers data based upon prototype testing/estimates by the manufucturer in EARLY 1943!*

You need to read the front page of the Spitfire performance testing website, in particular:



> An Air Ministry document from 29.10.43 details the protocol to use in arriving at performance figures for aircraft:
> 
> NOTE ON THE USE OF PERFORMANCE ESTIMATES
> 
> ...



Again, you owe me an apology!

--------------

Now I want to see that data showing the Spit V, IX, and XIV all turned equally well. You realize that if this is true it throws all your wingloading arguments right out the window, as all 3 planes had exactly the same wings but weights of 6500 lbs, 7500 lbs, and 8500 lbs, respectively.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 26, 2005)

> However, all F8F's had universal gunbays, and could fit either .50's or M3 20mm.



which to you means of course that they all carried 20mm and even though you don't know if they used 20mm before 1946 the fact that the gun bay could take it, in your increasingly annoying eyes this means that they did carry 20mm the whole time..........


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 26, 2005)

"_ your increasingly annoying eyes_"

Lanc, his eyes are stinging from your evil breath. What do you expect?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 26, 2005)

that's not evil, that's garlic


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 26, 2005)

You're a good sport Lanc. You know I'm just kidding.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 26, 2005)

of course i'm a good sport, i'm british, calling me a good sport is one of the biggest compliments you could pay me...........


----------



## Soren (Apr 26, 2005)

> Soren you can just go to hell!



And you expect to be taken seriusly when saying such rubbish ? RG Im disappointed !



> However, unlike you who simply chose to present the best data available as fact I read through all of it



Oh really, well then you just "forgot" this part or what ?:

5.1 _Due to a slight inaccuracy in the adjustment of the boost control the tests were not done in all cases at exactly the nominal boost. It is calculated that altering the boost on test to the nominal value would have increased the normal rate of climb below full throttle height by about 70 ft/min. in MS gear (boost 0.4 lb/sq.in. too low) and 100 ft/min. in FS gear (boost 0.7 lb/sq.in. too low). _



> Now I want to see that data showing the Spit V, IX, and XIV all turned equally well.



RG I already gave you them !! 

Now I want to see that Spit V and F6F test of yours !



> You realize that if this is true it throws all your wingloading arguments right out the window, as all 3 planes had exactly the same wings but weights of 6500 lbs, 7500 lbs, and 8500 lbs, respectively



 

Your actually convinced that its all about the Wing-loading as to how well a plane turns ?!!  

RG what about Power-loading, Wing-aspect-ratio, center of gravity etc etc !


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 26, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > However, all F8F's had universal gunbays, and could fit either .50's or M3 20mm.
> 
> 
> 
> which to you means of course that they all carried 20mm and even though you don't know if they used 20mm before 1946 the fact that the gun bay could take it, in your increasingly annoying eyes this means that they did carry 20mm the whole time..........



No, just that they could have.

BTW: the universal gunbay design came from... the British!

I believe there were a few F8F-1N's in the inital batch of F8F's, and these had 20mm. But I am not sure these were delivered before 1946.


----------



## Soren (Apr 26, 2005)

As for the Spit Mk.21 and F8F Bearcat.

RG the Normal loaded weight for the Bearcat was *9,386 lb*, and its wing area 244 sq.ft. The Spit Mk.21's normal loaded weight was 8850 lb, and its wing area was *244 sq.ft *!

And according to my sources, the Spit 21's new wing gave greater lift !


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 26, 2005)

Soren said:


> > Soren you can just go to hell!
> 
> 
> 
> And you expect to be taken seriusly when saying such rubbish ? RG Im disappointed !



When you accuse me of fabricating the data which is right there on the same site you are quoting what do you expect me to say? You deserve worse!



Soren said:


> > However, unlike you who simply chose to present the best data available as fact I read through all of it
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Once again you do not read very well do you? 



> 5.1 Due to a slight inaccuracy in the adjustment of the boost control the tests were not done in all cases at exactly the nominal boost. It is calculated that altering the boost on test to the nominal value would have increased the normal rate of climb below full throttle height by about 70 ft/min. in MS gear (boost 0.4 lb/sq.in. too low) and 100 ft/min. in FS gear (boost 0.7 lb/sq.in. too low).
> 
> *.....The level speed and rate of climb at combat rating would not have been affected appreciably.*
> http://www.spitfireperformance.com/la187.html



The underlined words in the passage you quoted and the part you chose not to quote that follows, which I've highlighted in bold, make it utterly clear that this is irrelevant to the *combat climb* - which is what we are talking about right? I left that passage out because it does not have any bearing on the climb rates under discussion.



Soren said:


> > Now I want to see that data showing the Spit V, IX, and XIV all turned equally well.
> 
> 
> 
> RG I already gave you them !!



The source Soren? Surely you don't expect me to take your typing of selected sections of such information at face value do you? 8) 



Soren said:


> Now I want to see that Spit V and F6F test of yours !



So far all I've found are references to it, not the actual data. I'm still looking...



Soren said:


> > You realize that if this is true it throws all your wingloading arguments right out the window, as all 3 planes had exactly the same wings but weights of 6500 lbs, 7500 lbs, and 8500 lbs, respectively
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are the one who has pointed to wingloading over and over again to support your "this plane must turn better than that plane" arguments. Powerloading helps to sustain a turn, but it does not tighten it. The wing aspect ratios of all three models of Spitfire's are the same, and the center of gravity for the V is the best of the three. But most of all, pilot accounts relate that the Spit V was the best handling of all the versions of the Spitfire and that later models did not manuver as well because of the increase in weight.

So lets see the source data to confirm your claim. Or is it "Home made"? (sorry - I just couldn't help myself  )

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 26, 2005)

Soren said:


> As for the Spit Mk.21 and F8F Bearcat.
> 
> RG the Normal loaded weight for the Bearcat was *9,386 lb*, and its wing area 244 sq.ft. The Spit Mk.21's normal loaded weight was 8850 lb, and its wing area was *244 sq.ft *!



Where do you get that data from? The combat weight I have found for the F8F-1 is 8800 lbs, ~9400 lbs with a drop tank. For the F8F-2 the weight goes up to about 9400 lbs clean. The weight I gave for the Spitfire 21 was from the Spitfire performance testing site - which gives 9305 for the plane tested, but some lower wieghts as well, so I split the difference and used 9250 lbs.

I've arranged to get the Pilot Handbook for the F8F - I should have it in a few days. It should include the combat weight of the plane (if it includes both -1 and -2 data).



Soren said:


> And according to my sources, the Spit 21's new wing gave greater lift !



By what magic? It's the same airfoil. I've given you the NACA airfoil numbers for the wing, they are identical to those of the earlier Spitfires. Same airfoil, same wing area, same lift.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Apr 26, 2005)

> Once again you do not read very well do you?



RG, your the one who forgot something !

RG explain to me why would a Spit weighing 9,000 lbs rated to climb at 7.85 min be faster than a Spit weighing 8850 lbs ? The Spit 21's normal weight was 8850 lbs, so it would actually climb faster.



> The source Soren?



The bloody 4th fighter group site !! But to make it easy for you: 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14afdu.html

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9tactical.html



> You are the one who has pointed to wingloading over and over again to support your "this plane must turn better than that plane" arguments.



No RG, that was infact you ! And you forgot Power-loading !



> But most of all, pilot accounts relate that the Spit V was the best handling of all the versions of the Spitfire and that later models did not manuver as well because of the increase in weight.



Just ONE example please. According to all my available accounts the controls got heavier, but maneuverability was better !


----------



## Soren (Apr 26, 2005)

> Where do you get that data from? The combat weight I have found for the F8F-1 is 8800 lbs, ~9400 lbs with a drop tank. For the F8F-2 the weight goes up to about 9400 lbs clean. The weight I gave for the Spitfire 21 was from the Spitfire performance testing site - which gives 9305 for the plane tested, but some lower wieghts as well, so I split the difference and used 9250 lbs.



RG the F8F-1 already weighes 7,070 lbs EMPTY ! Normally loaded (Without Drop-tank) it weighes 9,386 lbs, and max loaded it weighes 12,947 lbs.



> I've arranged to get the Pilot Handbook for the F8F - I should have it in a few days. It should include the combat weight of the plane (if it includes both -1 and -2 data).



Right now Im looking at a book supposedly based on it !  



> By what magic? It's the same airfoil. I've given you the NACA airfoil numbers for the wing, they are identical to those of the earlier Spitfires. Same airfoil, same wing area, same lift.



Why havent you given me a source then ? A link, anything ! 

My source tells me the new wing provided more lift, so until you give me some solid evidence that it didnt, Im gonna have to stick to that.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 26, 2005)

Soren said:


> > Once again you do not read very well do you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The 7.85 minute to 30k time is a 1943 factory figure relating to a prototype. Most likely it is an estimate based upon partial tests, bench tests, or the slide rule. It has no bearing on reality, especially since the actual flight tested data from a production unit is available.

I've not seen that weight for the Spit 21 - where do you get it from?



Soren said:


> > The source Soren?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Okay, I'll conceed that the Spit V/IX/XIV all turned about equally well. It really does not matter to the point being made, which concern's the Sptifire vs. Bearcat turning capability.

Here's a quote on the relative turning capability of the Hellcat, Bearcat, Spit V, and Zero:



> ...
> The Hellcat was no slouch in a turning contest, giving the Spitfire Mk Vb fits when tested by the British in 1943. The Bearcat’s better power to weight ratio allowed it to retain energy better than the F6F. Not only did the F8F have a better initial turn rate, it had a significantly better sustained turn rate. It was found to out-turn the A6M5 Zero at speeds above 200 mph, and match it down to 160 mph, where the lighter Zero held the edge.
> http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/Grumman.html



Here's a quote concerning the Zero vs. the Spit V:



> In early 1943 the TAIU in Australia rebuilt a Mitsubishi A6M "Zeke", using parts of five different aircraft captured at Buna, New Guinea. The completed aircraft was test flown ; the flights included mock combat against a Spitfire V. It was concluded that the "Zeke" was superior to the Spitfire below 20,000 feet. In late 1943 the "Zeke" was shipped to the United States aboard the escort carrier USS "Copahee"; it went to Wright Field where it was flown and evaluated.
> https://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/airtechintel.htm



The F6F tests were carried out at Boscomb Down in (March?) 1943. I'm trying to track down the actual tests (if they are available).

But the point is pretty clearly made. The F6F could turn with the Spit V, the Zero could out-turn it, but the Bearcat could out turn them both!

The Bearcat could also roll nearly as well as an FW190 - which was studied carefully by Grumman in its development the Bearcat.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 26, 2005)

Soren said:


> > Where do you get that data from? The combat weight I have found for the F8F-1 is 8800 lbs, ~9400 lbs with a drop tank. For the F8F-2 the weight goes up to about 9400 lbs clean. The weight I gave for the Spitfire 21 was from the Spitfire performance testing site - which gives 9305 for the plane tested, but some lower wieghts as well, so I split the difference and used 9250 lbs.
> 
> 
> 
> RG the F8F-1 already weighes 7,070 lbs EMPTY ! Normally loaded (Without Drop-tank) it weighes 9,386 lbs, and max loaded it weighes 12,947 lbs.



The test data I've seen (and posted) shows 8800-9000 lbs for the F8F-1 at combat weight.



Soren said:


> > By what magic? It's the same airfoil. I've given you the NACA airfoil numbers for the wing, they are identical to those of the earlier Spitfires. Same airfoil, same wing area, same lift.
> 
> 
> 
> Why havent you given me a source then ? A link, anything !



I have, but I'll give it to you again:

UIUC page: http://www.aae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html

This page explains how to interpret the NACA airfoil numbering system:

http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/Wing31.htm

The UIUC webpage gives the airfoils for a large number of Aircraft, including the Spitfires, Corsair, and Bearcat. Search it for "Spitfire 21" and you will see there was no change in the airfoil used. The only difference that might add a tiny bit of lift would be that the wing was not quite so eliptical, it didn't come to a point out at the very tip, it was squared off. This would mean there'd be a little more chord further out on the wing which might give a little bit more lift - but not a huge amount.



Soren said:


> My source tells me the new wing provided more lift, so until you give me some solid evidence that it didnt, Im gonna have to stick to that.



Done!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Apr 26, 2005)

First of all, the any of the three Spitfire's would trash an F6F Hellcat in a T&B fight. (Just take a look at the stats !)

Secondly I don't believe anything that site says as I personally own two of the books he "Says" he uses as sources (Grumman : Sixty Years of Excellence. for one), and none is mentioned about the F6F matching the Spit in a turn ! 



> The 7.85 minute to 30k time is a 1943 factory figure relating to a prototype. Most likely it is an estimate based upon partial tests, bench tests, or the slide rule. It has no bearing on reality, especially since the actual flight tested data from a production unit is available.




Wrong RG, they are based on tests with the aircraft as explained:

*Spitfire F. Mark 21 - Griffon 61 Performance Tests Of Prototype DP.851 

Summary of Results

At an all-up weight of 9000 lb. and with combat rating of 2750 r.p.m. and 18 lb. boost: 

(a) Maximum level speed 455 m.p.h. at 25,600 ft. 
(b) Maximum rate of climb 4800 Ft./Min. at 7700 ft. 
(c) Time to 30,000 ft. 7.85 mins. 
(d) Service ceiling 42,800 ft. 
(e) Coolant and oil suitabilities: Full tropical under combat climb conditions. *

And more details:

_1. Introduction.

This report summarizes the results obtained on the prototype Mark 21 fitted with a Griffon 61 engine. 

2. Summary of Results

At an all up weight of 9000 lb. and wtih combat rating of 2750 r.p.m. and 18 lb. boost:- 

(a) Maximum level speed 455 m.p.h. at 25,600 ft. 
(b) Maximum rate of climb 4800 Ft./Min. at 7700 ft. 
(c) Time to 30,000 ft. 7.85 mins. 
(d) Service ceiling 42,800 ft. 
(e) Coolant and oil suitabilities: Full tropical under combat climb conditions. 


3. Condition of Aircraft

(a) Griffon 61 engine No. 1266 fitted with a .45 airscrew reduction gear. 
(b) 11 ft. 0 in. dia. 5 blade Jablo Rotol airscrew with faired roots. Blades to Drg. No. RA.10129/JJ. 
(c) Morris type QEW (port and QEY (starboard) radiators. 
Morris type QEV intercoller radiator. 
Morris type QEZ oil cooler. 
The duct static exit areas are: closed mean 0.76, open mean 2.02 sq. ft. 
(d) Tropical type of air intake to Drg. No. 35638 Sht. 35 was fitted. 
(e) Multi-ejector exhausts fitted. 
(f) Windscreen with a curved front panel as on production rear view fuselage. 
(g) T.R.1133 whip type aerial fitted. 
(h) Undercarriage-wheel flaps fitted for final flight. Retractable tail wheel. 
(i) Four 20 m/m cannon armament. 
(j) All up weight 9000 lb. C.G. 3.3" inches aft of datum. 


4. Reduction of Results

Results have been reduced to I.C.A.N. standard conditions in accordance with A.D.M. 555. 

5. Results

The results are shown on Figs. 1-4_


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 26, 2005)

It says that performance tests were done, but there is no indication that actual full flight tests were done. And besides it's a prototype, not the real thing!

The tests of the real thing are there for you to see. Why do you ingore 1945 AAEE production model tests in favor of 1943 factory prototype tests which give no detail and could well be estimated performance based upon partial climbs and partial speed tests, and which bear almost no relation to the tests carried out on the actual production unit? It just doesn't make sense!


----------



## Soren (Apr 26, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Done!



RG the Spit Mk.XXI isnt there !


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 26, 2005)

Soren,

Luni is correct, this time, for the Spit XIV and the Spit 21 used the same NACA 22 series airfoil, as did all Spits from the Mk I.

...................

Spit XIV
Fin area - 4.51ft2
Rudder area - 8.23ft2, later 10.08ft2


----------



## Soren (Apr 26, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Soren,
> 
> Luni is correct, this time, for the Spit XIV and the Spit 21 used the same NACA 22 series airfoil, as did all Spits from the Mk I.
> 
> ...



Yes the airfoil shape was the same, but i doubt the thickness.

In any case wing thickness differences of only 1-5% gives only VERY little extra lift !

The Typhoon and Tempest are good examples of this, as their wings were amongst the thickest put on any Single-piston-engined a/c, yet their turn performance wasnt good at all. The Typhoon being only a tiny bit better in turning circles than the Tempest because of its 19% airfoil vs Tempest 14% airfoil thickness, but the difference is barely there. 

Tempest: 

Power: 2,180-2,420 hp
Wing Area: 302 sq.ft
Normal Loaded weight: 11,400 lbs

Typhoon:

Power: 2,180-2,420 hp
Wing Area: 278 sq.ft
Normal Loaded weight: 11,780 lbs

Stall speed for both aircraft was around 87-89 mph. 

*TEMPEST V TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH TYPHOON IB* 

Turning Circle 
_Very Similar. Any difference appears to be in favour of the Typhoon. This is too slight to alter combat tactics._ 

*TEMPEST V COMBAT TRIALS AGAINST SPITFIRE XIV* 

Turning Circle 
_The Spitfire XVI easily out-turns the Tempest._


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 27, 2005)

Soren said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Done!
> ...



Grrrr. Try again. This time search on "Spitfire 21", not "Spitfire XXI". The site accurately uses 21 rather than XXI since starting with the 21 Supermarine chose to switch to arabic rather than roman numbering.

The following Supermarine aircraft are listed....


```
Conventional Aircraft:                       Wing Root Airfoil               Wing Tip Airfoil
 Supermarine 179 Giant                        RAF-34                          RAF-34
 Supermarine 224 F7/30                        NACA 0018                       RAF-34
 Supermarine 300 Spitfire I                   NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 316 B.12/36                      NACA 22??                       NACA 22??
 Supermarine 317 B.12/36                      NACA 22??                       NACA 22??
 Supermarine 318 B.12/36                      NACA 22??                       NACA 22??
 Supermarine 329 Spitfire II                  NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 331 Spitfire VA                  NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 337 Spitfire F IV                NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 340 Seafire IB                   NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 348 Spitfire III                 NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 349 Spitfire VB                  NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 350 Spitfire HF VI               NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 351 Spitfire VII                 NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 352 Spitfire VC                  NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 356 Spitfire 22                  NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 357 Seafire F IIC                NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 358 Seafire F III                NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 359 Spitfire VIII                NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 360 Spitfire VIII                NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 361 Spitfire IX                  NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 362 Spitfire PR X                NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 365 Spitfire PR XI               NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 366 Spitfire F XII               NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 368 Spitfire 21                  NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 368 Spitfire VIII                NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 369 Spitfire F XIV               NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 371 F 14 Spiteful                Supermarine 371-I               Supermarine 371-II
 Supermarine 372 Valiant F 23                 NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 373 Spitfire F XIV               NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 375 Seafire L IIC                NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 376 Spitfire VIII                NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 377 Seafire F XV                 NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 378 Spitfire IX                  NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 379 Spitfire F XIV               NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 380 Spitfire F XVI               NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 381 Seagull                      NACA 23018                      NACA 3410
 Supermarine 382 Seafang F 31                 Supermarine 371-I               Supermarine 371-II
 Supermarine 386 Seafire F XV                 NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 388 Seafire F 45                 NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 389 Spitfire PR XIX              NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 390 Spitfire PR XIX              NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 392 FB Mk2 Attacker              Supermarine 371-I               Supermarine 371-II
 Supermarine 393 F 16 Spiteful                Supermarine 371-I               Supermarine 371-II
 Supermarine 394 Spitfire F XVIII             NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 395 Seafire F XVII               NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 396 Seafang F 32                 Supermarine 371-I               Supermarine 371-II
 Supermarine 474 Seafire F 47                 NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 505                              ? 7% symmetrical                ? 7% symmetrical
 Supermarine 506 Seafire LF III                NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 508                              ? 7% symmetrical                ? 7% symmetrical
 Supermarine 521 Spitfire T VIII              NACA 2213                       NACA 2209.4
 Supermarine 529                              ? 7% symmetrical                ? 7% symmetrical
 Supermarine 545                              RAE 103                         RAE 103
 Supermarine Seamew                           Gottingen 387                   Gottingen 387
 Supermarine Sparrow Biplane                  RAF-15 (upper)                  AD 1 (lower)
 Supermarine Sparrow Monoplane                Clark Y                         Clark Y
 Supermarine Sparrow Monoplane                T 64                            T 64
 Supermarine Sparrow Monoplane                RAF-30                          RAF-30
 Supermarine Sparrow Monoplane                SA 12                           SA 12
 Supermarine S-5                              RAF-30                          RAF-30
 Supermarine S-6                              RAF-27                          RAF-27
 Supermarine S-6B                             RAF-27                          RAF-27
```

As you can see ALL SPITFIRES USE THE SAME AIRFOIL!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 27, 2005)

Soren said:


> KraziKanuK said:
> 
> 
> > Soren,
> ...





> The NACA 4-digit airfoils mean the following: The first digit expresses the camber in percent chord, the second digit gives the location of the maximum camber point in tenths of chord, and the last two digits give the thickness in percent chord. Thus 4412 has a maximum camber of 4% of chord located at 40% chord back from the leading edge and is 12% thick, while 0006 is a symmetrical section of 6% thickness.
> 
> The NACA 5 digit series airfoil means the following: The first digit designates the approximate camber in percent chord, the second digit indicates twice the position of the maximum camber in tenths chord, the third (either 0 or 1) distinguishes the type of mean-camber line, and the last two digits give the thickness in percent chord. Thus, the 23012 airfoil has a maximum camber of about 2% of the chord located at 15% of the chord from the leading edge (3 tenths divided by 2) and is 12% thick.
> http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/Wing31.htm



Soren, read the above, it expains how to interpret the NACA airfoil numeric code. The chord of the Spitfire 21 wing did not increase at the root, it increased near the tip it was a rather minimal change (from looking at photos). Since the last two digits of the airfoil indicate thickness as a percentage of chord, which for the Spitfire is 13% at the root and 9.4% at the tip, there would be almost no change in wing thickness.



Soren said:


> In any case wing thickness differences of only 1-5% gives only VERY little extra lift !



Glad you realize this... now apply this knowlege to your prop efficiency near the root argument!  




Soren said:


> The Typhoon and Tempest are good examples of this, as their wings were amongst the thickest put on any Single-piston-engined a/c, yet their turn performance wasnt good at all. The Typhoon being only a tiny bit better in turning circles than the Tempest because of its 19% airfoil vs Tempest 14% airfoil thickness, but the difference is barely there.
> 
> Tempest:
> 
> ...



Well, lets look at the airfoils...


```
Conventional Aircraft:               Wing Root Airfoil         Wing Tip Airfoil
 Hawker Tempest                       H/1414/37.5 (14%)         H/1410/37.5 (10%)
 Hawker Typhoon                       NACA 2219                 NACA 2213
```

I have no idea how to interpret the Tempest airfoil encoding, it is not NACA. However, it seems extremely likely that it is 14% of the chord thickness at the root and 10% at the tip.

The 19% thickness at the Typhoon root is HUGE... I have to wonder how fast it tapered off toward 13%, I would bet it did so rather quickly. Assuming the 14%/10% values for the Tempest wing it makes sense the Typhoon would turn a little better, despite its higher weight.

Given the 33% higher weight of the Tempest/Typhoon, it is not at all surprising the Spitfire XIV would out-turn them.

Just my opinion, but I think that lift from the wings is more significant for lower speed turns, the ability to achieve angle of attack via the tail surfaces becomes increasingly significant with increasing speed, where angle turning becomes more important than sustained turn rates.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 27, 2005)

The Tempest used a _'laminar'_ airfoil. Max chord was at 37.5%.

The Typhoon's wing had a slight anhedral inner section (to the u/c pivot point) and a dihedral outer section. The bottom of the inner section was horizontal with the upper surface slanted downwards to the join point of the outer section.


----------



## Soren (Apr 27, 2005)

> Glad you realize this... now apply this knowlege to your prop efficiency near the root argument!



RG there's a difference betweeen having two airfoils with a 1-5% in thickness difference, and having some with a *50% * thickness difference !  




> The 19% thickness at the Typhoon root is HUGE... I have to wonder how fast it tapered off toward 13%, I would bet it did so rather quickly. Assuming the 14%/10% values for the Tempest wing it makes sense the Typhoon would turn a little better, despite its higher weight.
> 
> Given the 33% higher weight of the Tempest/Typhoon, it is not at all surprising the Spitfire XIV would out-turn them.



Glad you realized this, now apply this to the Spit XIV vs Corsair arguement !  

The only airfoil shape that has any *real* impact on lift is the "Laminar" airfoil, wich although reduces drag significantly also reduces lift, especially in turns ! This explains why the Typhoon barely outturned the Tempest, the thickmess difference between the wings has nothing to do with it, however the shape does !


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 27, 2005)

Ummm.. a 15% thickness airfoil IS 50% thicker than a 10% thickness airfoil, given the same wing chord. The Typhoon wing is almost TWICE as thick (well, 190%) as the Tempest airfoil (assuming the chords are the same).

I disagree. Both things contriubute to the Typhoon out-turning the Tempest.


----------



## Soren (Apr 27, 2005)

> Ummm.. a 15% thickness airfoil IS 50% thicker than a 10% thickness airfoil, given the same wing chord. The Typhoon wing is almost TWICE as thick (well, 190%) as the Tempest airfoil (assuming the chords are the same).



My fault, it should have been 500%, and to illustrate it, look at the bottom of the page. (Those two prop-airfoils have a thickness difference of approx.300% !)



> I disagree. Both things contriubute to the Typhoon out-turning the Tempest.



Offcourse, but it is the "Laminar" airfoil shape that takes away most of the lift.


----------



## Soren (Apr 28, 2005)

Btw RG, by looking through your presented airfoil site, I found out that it is just flat wrong about alot of airfoil data ! 

For example the Lavochkin series according to all my sources used the NACA *23012* root profile, but according to your presented site it is an insane *23016* !! 

According to your presented site the Lavochkin series had a thicker wing than both the F4U Corsair and the F6F Hellcat, wich clearly isnt true ! ( If you aint convinced, then look at the pic's below )


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 28, 2005)

Soren said:


> Btw RG, by looking through your presented airfoil site, I found out that it is just flat wrong about alot of airfoil data !
> 
> For example the Lavochkin series according to all my sources used the NACA *23012* root profile, but according to your presented site it is an insane *23016* !!
> 
> According to your presented site the Lavochkin series had a thicker wing than both the F4U Corsair and the F6F Hellcat, wich clearly isnt true ! ( If you aint convinced, then look at the pic's below )



Well, I think that depends on where exactly you measure it. If you look closely the La7 wing does get very very thick right at the root, but it tapers off very quckly to a less thick airfoil just a short distance from the fuselage. Different standards of measurement may be the cause - some measure right at the root just inches from the join to the fuselage, others consider the root to be at 10% out from the join, and the tip to be 90% from the join. While the normal specification seems to be a root airfoil and a tip airfoil, the area in between obviously transitions a number of intermediate airfoils to get from the one to the other.

Right at the actual join (which is spread across the bottom of the plane), the La7 wing might indeed be as thick as that of the Corsair, its chord is only slightly more but probably more than 1%. 10% out from the root, the chord of the La7 wing has diminished significantly and quite possibly the airfoil has already reduced from 16% to 12% thickness. The combo of both factors would make the wing look much thinner in the photos you've provided.

Alternatively the site has wrong data for the Lavochkin airfoils. Why don't you email the webmaster and ask? 

What other airfoils do you think are incorrect? I would expect the Russian airfoils to be the least reliable in the list for obvious reasons.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Apr 28, 2005)

> Alternatively the site has wrong data for the Lavochkin airfoils. Why don't you email the webmaster and ask?



I have problems with my E-mail program, wich just out of the blue stopped working 2 weeks ago  



> What other airfoils do you think are incorrect? I would expect the Russian airfoils to be the least reliable in the list for obvious reasons.



Actually your expectations are well grounded, as it is mostly Russian airfoil data that is incorrect, but also a few Jap airfoil data.


----------



## Smokey (Apr 28, 2005)

I heard that the Bearcat had explosive bolts on it wings so that it could blow of its outer wing panels to increase roll rate in a dogfight. Is this true?
Was it a secret weapon system designed to fling pieces of wing at the opposing aircraft?


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 28, 2005)

Smokey said:


> I heard that the Bearcat had explosive bolts on it wings so that it could blow of its outer wing panels to increase roll rate in a dogfight. Is this true?
> Was it a secret weapon system designed to fling pieces of wing at the opposing aircraft?



The outer tip was designed to break away when over stressed. Later this 'option' was discontinued.

_"It was also fitted with so called "Safety Wing Tips", the outer 40 inches of which were designed to break off cleanly in case of the wing being overstressed in a dive or other maneuver. After several incidents where one or both wing tips tore off, this feature was eliminated from later production Bearcats."_


----------



## evangilder (Apr 28, 2005)

KK has it right, it was not to increase manueverability but to brak off if the wing became overstressed. Interesting idea, but flawed.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 28, 2005)

Smokey said:


> I heard that the Bearcat had explosive bolts on it wings so that it could blow of its outer wing panels to increase roll rate in a dogfight. Is this true?
> Was it a secret weapon system designed to fling pieces of wing at the opposing aircraft?



Not exactly. This system was also on some of the earlier Corsairs, but was removed. I suspect it was on the Bearcat as well.

The idea was that if stress in a dive became too high the outer wing panels could be shed rather than having the wings tear off. It was a stupid idea and I think it was removed on both Bearcat and Corsair service aircraft.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 28, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Not exactly. This system was also on some of the earlier Corsairs, but was removed. I suspect it was on the Bearcat as well.
> 
> The idea was that if stress in a dive became too high the outer wing panels could be shed rather than having the wings tear off. It was a stupid idea and I think it was removed on both Bearcat and Corsair service aircraft.
> 
> ...



This place has an echo.  

That's sort of correct, the Corsair had the outer wing skin fabric rip away, thus easing the strain on the wing. , , ,


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 29, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> That's sort of correct, the Corsair had the outer wing skin fabric rip away, thus easing the strain on the wing. , , ,



Double check that KK, I think you will find it had break away panels, originally w/o explosive bolts. The problem was that in some hard turning manuvers one panel could break away but the other would not. But it was the whole section, not just the fabric (which only covers the part of the wing rear of the spar).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 29, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> KraziKanuK said:
> 
> 
> > That's sort of correct, the Corsair had the outer wing skin fabric rip away, thus easing the strain on the wing. , , ,
> ...


So breakaway a section at the tip was found to be of no use in 1940, yet Grumman put them on the F8F a few years later. Sure whatever you say.  I hope the port tip is not lost since the pilot will have lost his pitot tube.

Such a novel feature would be mentioned, for sure, but never is in any description of the F4U prototype.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 29, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > KraziKanuK said:
> ...



Perhaps I'm mistaken. In any case it was a stupid idea!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 29, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Perhaps I'm mistaken. In any case it was a stupid idea!
> 
> =S=
> 
> Lunatic



Yes again, perhaps.  Yup, the Americans could come with with some pretty dumb ideas, just as every other country.


----------



## VA5124 (Jun 8, 2021)

the bearcat would take the spit anyday more power more aerodynamic and even though the guns arent as good its still better


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 8, 2021)

V
 VA5124
Its been at least 9 years since any of these member have been on the forum


----------



## pbehn (Jun 8, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> the bearcat would take the spit anyday more power more aerodynamic and even though the guns arent as good its still better


Would it take a Spitfire Mk21 or 22 any day?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Jun 8, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Would it take a Spitfire Mk21 or 22 any day?


yes it would it would sherd a spit


----------



## pbehn (Jun 9, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> yes it would it would sherd a spit


Is this based on colour scheme or does actual performance matter?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Jun 9, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Is this based on colour scheme or does actual performance matter?


the bearcat is just better


----------



## pbehn (Jun 9, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> the bearcat is just better


In a sort of bluey Bearcatty sort of a way?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Jun 9, 2021)

pbehn said:


> In a sort of bluey Bearcatty sort of a way?


no in a higher performecne way


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 9, 2021)

The Bearcat did have the advantage of a decade of aerodynamics improvements, and was arguably the best piston engine fighter, but there wasn’t enough difference in performance to guarantee anything


----------



## pbehn (Jun 9, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> no in a higher performecne way


How was the maximum altitude performance BTW?


----------



## VA5124 (Jun 9, 2021)

better because of the high hp pratt


----------



## pbehn (Jun 9, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> better because of the high hp pratt


At 35,000ft?


----------



## VA5124 (Jun 9, 2021)

pbehn said:


> At 35,000ft?


yes your rolls would starving for power at that height but us with the pratt we'd be fine and another can you fly upsided down no you cant you will starve the engine

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 9, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> yes your rolls would starving for power at that height but us with the pratt we'd be fine and another can you fly upsided down no you cant you will starve the engine


I thought the Pratt was optimised for a much lower altitude.


----------



## VA5124 (Jun 9, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I thought the Pratt was optimised for a much lower altitude.


its a pratt to it attuide doesnt matter and hows it feel to be scared of flying upside down


----------



## pbehn (Jun 9, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> its a pratt to it attuide doesnt matter and hows it feel to be scared of flying upside down


Were they considered for the Apollo programme?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Crimea_River (Jun 9, 2021)

Another 3 minutes of my life I won't get back. Starting to use the "Ignore" function more now and wonder if there are any posts that I'll see any more.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Jun 9, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Were they considered for the Apollo programme?


what does that have to do with anything


----------



## Dawncaster (Jun 9, 2021)

Another VS topic?

Why not compare with colourful images!













All curves corrected for military standard, official performances from Standard Aircraft Characteristics and Performance Summary.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Jun 9, 2021)

better than a spit


----------



## pbehn (Jun 9, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> better than a spit


This is just trolling Spitfire Mk 21 Performance Testing


----------



## VA5124 (Jun 9, 2021)

pbehn said:


> This is just trolling Spitfire Mk 21 Performance Testing


 no a troll compare those numb ers to the bearcat youll see


----------



## pbehn (Jun 9, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> no a troll compare those numb ers to the bearcat youll see


I just did, the Bearcat is the F8 not the pretty blue line.


----------



## VA5124 (Jun 9, 2021)

show me the numbers ill still think if we would have had to fight the spit we could have took it


----------



## pbehn (Jun 9, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> show me the numbers ill still think if we would have had to fight the spit we could have took it


I posted "the numbers" the F4U-4 and 5 and the P-51H all have two stage engines and outperform the Bearcat especially at altitude, the Spitfire 21 has a two stage griffon so why do you expect a different result?


----------



## VA5124 (Jun 9, 2021)

i concede i really thought i had it but i dont ill be leaving now


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 9, 2021)

Pretty blue line was powered by this




But not until well after WW II. 
The F8F uses a single stage supercharger and had nowhere near the altitude performance. 
This version of the R-2800 didn't have a hope of fitting in an F8 airframe.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 11, 2021)

pbehn said:


> In a sort of bluey Bearcatty sort of a way?



If it's Navy blue it's gon' get you!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 11, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> its a pratt to it attuide doesnt matter and hows it feel to be scared of flying upside down



Pretty sure that issue got ironed out much earlier in the war.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 11, 2021)

Man, I miss Soren


----------



## VA5124 (Jun 11, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Pretty sure that issue got ironed out much earlier in the war.


maybe but its still funny


----------



## pbehn (Jun 11, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> maybe but its still funny


What is? Or is this more trolling?


----------



## VA5124 (Jun 11, 2021)

pbehn said:


> What is? Or is this more trolling?


not a troll just think its funny early spits and canes couldnt fly upside down while we could


----------



## pbehn (Jun 11, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> not a troll just think its funny early spits and canes couldnt fly upside down while we could


Who is "we"?


----------



## VA5124 (Jun 11, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Who is "we"?


we as in the us everything form the p 36 to the p61 could fly upside down


----------



## pbehn (Jun 11, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> we as in the us everything form the p 36 to the p61 could fly upside down


Did you have anything that could fly the right way up above 15,000ft? Your aircraft couldnt fight any higher than people in the Himalayas and Peru went for a walk.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Jun 11, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Did you have anything that could fly the right way up above 15,000ft? Your aircraft couldnt fight any higher than people in the Himalayas and Peru went for a walk.


p51 p38 p61 p47 f4u


----------



## pbehn (Jun 11, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> p51 p38 p61 p47 f4u


The P-51 as Mustang Mk 1 only was useful because it could take pictures and run away, not exactly what you want in a fighter, when it was fitted with the same engine as a Spitfire, it was really quite good, so what were you saying about flying upside down and Spitfires?


----------



## VA5124 (Jun 11, 2021)

pbehn said:


> The P-51 as Mustang Mk 1 only was useful because it could take pictures and run away, not exactly what you want in a fighter, when it was fitted with the same engine as a Spitfire, it was really quite good, so what were you saying about flying upside down and Spitfires?


high g moves starved your enigines


----------



## pbehn (Jun 11, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> high g moves starved your enigines


The P-51B/C D etc had "our" engines. I think you mean negative and not high "g", I also think you need some trolling practice, you arent very good at it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Jun 11, 2021)

pbehn said:


> The P-51B/C D etc had "our" engines. I think you mean negative and not high "g", I also think you need some trolling practice, you arent very good at it.


whatever im done here

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 11, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> maybe but its still funny



Funny, and irrelevant. Thanks anyway.



VA5124 said:


> whatever im done here



Oh, the humanity.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 11, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> whatever im done here


Is that a promise?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Jun 11, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Is that a promise?


i would like to issue an apolgoy i dont hate the spit i actually it like


----------



## Airframes (Jun 13, 2021)

The early Spitfire actually _*could*_ fly upside down. 
What it couldn't do was "bunt", that is, nose over into a dive, without a short period when the engine "cut" due to fuel starvation, this problem being cured by alterations to the carb system.
To follow a diving enemy, the Spitfire did a half roll and then the pilot "pulled" to initiate a dive, before rolling level again. Seemed to work quite well ...............

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 13, 2021)

Airframes said:


> The early Spitfire actually _*could*_ fly upside down.
> What it couldn't do was "bunt", that is, nose over into a dive, without a short period when the engine "cut" due to fuel starvation, this problem being cured by alterations to the carb system.
> To follow a diving enemy, the Spitfire did a half roll and then the pilot "pulled" to initiate a dive, before rolling level again. Seemed to work quite well ...............


That has answered a question. Bob Doe in Bungay's "The Most Dangerous Enemy" feared he would be washed out because he hated flying inverted, I have always wondered how he knew or at what stage of training flying inverted was a "thing" because I understood (falsely) you couldnt do it with a Merlin.


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 13, 2021)

pbehn said:


> That has answered a question. Bob Doe in Bungay's "The Most Dangerous Enemy" feared he would be washed out because he hated flying inverted, I have always wondered how he knew or at what stage of training flying inverted was a "thing" because I understood (falsely) you couldnt do it with a Merlin.


Inverted flying was done in basic training (maybe not as part of the course, but it was done) I was reading about pilots returning from practice in an inverted glide in a Tiger Moth, which didn't have inverted fuel. It's not really a problem unless the prop stops and you don't have enough altitude to dive to restart.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Jun 16, 2021)

I believe this was sort of settled by Flying Magazine and the Confederate Air Force when they held a couple dogfight matches between a Mustang and a Bearcat (first in the early 60’s, then 70’s?) the Bearcat dominated below 15k, things became more even between 15k and 25k, and then the Mustang dominated above 25k. Yes, the Spitfire is more maneuverable than the Mustang but the outcome should be pretty much the same.


----------

