# Goodyear F2G vs Grumman F8F Bearcat



## Harry64 (Jun 16, 2012)

As I found so different performance data of this two aicraft in the net, I would ask the specialists here in the forum for official or primary sources for performance data and comparison.

Examples for statements I found:

"the Grumman F8F Bearcat, that could do all the F2G could do"

or

"The F2G was designed to "'get it" up to altitude quickly, as was the F8F Bearcat, to counter the Japanese kamikaze threat. The expression "climbs like a homesick angle" was coined with the performance of the F2G. 6000 feet per minute climb is in the neighborhood of twice that of any preceding Corsair or other prop driven aircraft of the time." 

Okay that is interesting, but maybe anyone has real data for the performance of this two aircraft or an official Navy comparison?

Harry


----------



## krieghund (Jun 16, 2012)

This data may provide part of your answer


----------



## wuzak (Jun 16, 2012)

Interesting charts krieghund.

The climb numbers for the F8F-1 seem low. It is supposed to have been one of the fastest climbing piston engined planes - at least to 10,000ft.

Initial rate of climb seems simialr for both - but the F2G gets to 10,000ft sooner.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 16, 2012)

Harry64 said:


> "The F2G was designed to "'get it" up to altitude quickly, as was the F8F Bearcat, to counter the Japanese kamikaze threat. The expression "climbs like a homesick angle" was coined with the performance of the F2G. 6000 feet per minute climb is in the neighborhood of twice that of any preceding Corsair or other prop driven aircraft of the time."



The charts don't show performance anywhere near that. However, even if 6000ft/min were true it wouldn't be "twice that of any other prop drive aircraft of the time".

Mk.VIII, IX and XIV Spitfires all had initial climb rates of around 5000ft/min. And the Spitfires were all quicker to 10,000ft and 20,000ft.

I believe the P-51H had a similar initial climb rate.


----------



## GregP (Jun 16, 2012)

We have both visit the Planes of Fame on a regular basis. Bob Odegard comes by every once in awhile and we fly Bearcats regulalrly at the Museum and are restoring one to as-new condition.

The Bearcat (F8F-2) has a normal loaded weight of 9,600 lbs with 2,250 HP and 244 square feet of wing area. That is 4.27 pounds per HP a,d 39.3 pounds per square foot.

The F2G has a normal loaded weight of 13,346 lbs with 3,000 HP and 314 square feet of wing area. That is 4.44 pounds per HP and 42.5 ppounds per square foot.

So the power loading and wing loading both favor the F8F-2, and it is also faster at 455 mph versus 431 mph, both at best altitude.

Advantage Bearcat all the way around except for ordnance load. Give me a Bearcat any day of the week.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 16, 2012)

Thanks Harry, I'd never heard of this really interesting aircraft (the F2G) but of course much about its more famous counterpart the F8F. 

Surely an apocryphal story:

Flyoff between an P-52 (Version?) and F8F. Both launched from the runway at the same time, but by the time the P-51 reached equivalent alititude the F8F had already made two passes on it. Don't know if its true, don't know if its even realistic. just a story I heard long ago.


----------



## Harry64 (Jun 16, 2012)

Many thanks, *Krieghund*, for your charts, outstanding interest, great.

Also thanks to you *Greg* for your data.




wuzak said:


> The charts don't show performance anywhere near that. However, even if 6000ft/min were true it wouldn't be "twice that of any other prop drive aircraft of the time".


As I said *wuzak*, that are infos you found in the net, that was the reason I asked for official data. 


*oldcrowcv63 *
good story, even the P-52 was not outclassed in this extent 

Harry


----------



## krieghund (Jun 16, 2012)

wuzak said:


> I believe the P-51H had a similar initial climb rate.



Here are the F-51H charts


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 16, 2012)

Harry64 said:


> oldcrowcv63 [/B]
> good story, even the P-52 was not outclassed in this extent  Harry



Ooops, I meant P-51 of course! Senior moment.


----------



## GregP (Jun 16, 2012)

With a handle like oldcrow, we KNEW that! We just thought you were accounting for inflation ...

Cheers!

I see the nice chart on the F8F-1. 

How do you account for the fact that a stock military F8F-2, at the Cleveland Air races in 1949, went from a standstill on the runway to 10,000 feet above ground level in 91 seconds? Sounds like the rate of climb chart is a bit off, huh?


----------



## GregP (Jun 16, 2012)

duplpicate post ...


----------



## krieghund (Jun 17, 2012)

GregP said:


> We have both visit the Planes of Fame on a regular basis. Bob Odegard comes by every once in awhile and we fly Bearcats regulalrly at the Museum and are restoring one to as-new condition.
> 
> The Bearcat (F8F-2) has a normal loaded weight of 9,600 lbs with 2,250 HP and 244 square feet of wing area. That is 4.27 pounds per HP a,d 39.3 pounds per square foot.
> 
> ...



It would be interesting to know the loaded weight. I would imagine no ammo and min fuel. The ambient temperature would be good to know.


----------



## krieghund (Jun 17, 2012)

Just in case the F4U-4 Corsair is discussed here are the USN charts


----------



## GregP (Jun 17, 2012)

Alas, I am a lousy typist. The record was set in 1946, not 1949 (typo). The stock F8F-2 went from 0 to 10,000 feet in 94 seconds after a takeoff run of 115 feet. The average climb rate froma standing start was 6.383 feet per minute (1,276.6 meters per minute). The Bearcat held taht record for 10 years until beaten by a modern jet fighter that still could not beat the takeoff distance.

I have never seen a weight, engine rpm, manifold pressure, or horsepower rating for the particular F8F-2 used anywhere. World speed records are much the same.

The Me 209 was never documented all that well because they didn't want to give anything away to the competition. When Rare bear set the existing record, nobody publically recorded the weight, power, rpm, etc. The plane was certified as in the class if was supposed to be in and the rest was up to the record-setting team.

As an educated guiess, I'd estimate the F8F-2 at Cleveland in 1949 was taking off at about 8,500 pounds that day and was probably making about 2,400 HP.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 17, 2012)

The engine in a F8F-2 Bearcat was good for 2250-2300hp at sea level dry and 1600hp at at 22,000ft also dry. They were fitted for water injection. The engine in the F4U-5 was rated at 2300hp dry at sea level but one source gives 2850hp wet at 30,000ft with it's fancy two stage sidewinder supercharger. The F8F-2 used a variable speed drive on it's single stage supercharger. I would guess that 2400hp is a very conservative figure and 2800hp (wet) at the lower altitudes (and perhaps all the way to 10,000ft) would be closer.


----------



## GregP (Jun 17, 2012)

Most of the Bearcats WE see at the museum have 2,250 HP R-2800 engines in them. Defying all logic, most Bearcat people seem to take off at about 2,000 HP or so, even today, and throttle back once well airborne and cleaned up. The R-2800 doesn't seem to mind making almost full power once in awhile. All in all, my favorite piston fighter of all times and, in truth, faster tahn the specs in every single case I know of, which is more than 6 supposedly-stock Bearcats.

Of course, Rare Bear is FAR from stock and is more tahn 100 mph faster than stock specs. It'll make 540 mph or so any day of the week when it is running ... at a relatively low altitude, say .... about 4,400 feet MSL (mean sea level). At sea level, it is still capable of more than 500 mph on an average day.


----------



## Timppa (Jun 18, 2012)

GregP said:


> The record was set in 1946, not 1949 (typo). The stock F8F-2 went from 0 to 10,000 feet in 94 seconds after a takeoff run of 115 feet. The average climb rate froma standing start was 6.383 feet per minute (1,276.6 meters per minute).



This is totally unbelievable.
Take-off speed is, say 100 mph. 115 feet is 38 yards. That is a plausible acceleration ( average about 3g) for a Top Fuel dragster, but not for a WW2 wintage stock propeller airplane.
Or then there must have been a storm like headwind.

Also we know that Lyle Shelton set in 1972 time-to-climb record to 3,000 m in 91.9 seconds.
That was a heavily modified Bearcat with a 4,500 hp engine, weighing only 8,700 lb:
The Bear Is Back | History of Flight | Air Space Magazine

Claiming that a stock F8F could climb practically as well with (probably) more weight and half the power is beyond belief.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 18, 2012)

Timppa said:


> This is totally unbelievable.
> Take-off speed is, say 100 mph. 115 feet is 38 yards. That is a plausible acceleration ( average about 3g) for a Top Fuel dragster, but not for a WW2 wintage stock propeller airplane.
> Or then there must have been a storm like headwind.
> 
> ...



I would guess that there is some issue with the time-to-climb number but I understand that wind down the runway was 30 to 40 kts. As such, short takeoff in this situation is not unrealistic and is probably typical of carrier take offs. That kind of head start into a wind would also be reflected in the climb time. I read somewhere that the F8F was tied down and released but I don't know for sure.

Greg, wikipedia has the climb rate of the T-38 at 33k/min which is probably about right. I do know we flew a burner demo when we first got into the T-38 with a max burner climb followed by a burner TACAN arc at supersonic speed followed by a out of fuel recovery. Flight time was 15min. That plane could definitely go up! Thanks for the tour, I had a great time. Once my wife interrupted me with text message asking if I was in hog heaven. I replied, "yep".


----------



## GregP (Jun 18, 2012)

I was not at Cleveland in 1946, but it is reported as such in more than just a few places. You might try looking up the Grumman F8F Bearcat an checking it for records. You might also try looking for the 1946 Cleveland Air Races and looking at records set there.

I personally make no claim at all, just reported what is written about the aircraft. I can tell you this; reports of this feat are out there, authored in 1946 by people who were witnesses, including the U. S. Navy.

You are free to doubt the record. Having witnessed many stock Bearcat takeoffs, I don't really doubt it all that much.


----------



## Timppa (Jun 18, 2012)

Possible explanation:
Strip the F8F from all unnecessary weight;
-No guns
-No ammo
-No arresting gear
-No gunsight, armor, oxygen bottles, radio, removable armor, pyrotechnics, dinghy etc.
-Minimum fuel, lets say 40-50 gals, enough to to get to 10,000ft and back.
Weight : 7.000-7,500 lbs.

Boost the engine to 3,000-3,500 hp. (R-2800 was actually run with this power).


Of course this is not a "stock" F8F anymore, but a one-off racer to get an order from the US Navy.

Well, the Navy chose the F4U-5 anyway.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 18, 2012)

Timppa said:


> This is totally unbelievable.
> Take-off speed is, say 100 mph. 115 feet is 38 yards. That is a plausible acceleration ( average about 3g) for a Top Fuel dragster, but not for a WW2 wintage stock propeller airplane.
> Or then there must have been a storm like headwind.



Renee Francillon notes in his book "Grumman Aircraft Since 1929" (page 251): "The Bearcat's exceptional climb performance had been demonstrated on 20 November 1946, during the National Air Races in Cleveland, Ohio, when an F8F- flown by Lt. Cdr. M. W. Davenport set an unofficial time-to-height record by reaching 10,000 feet (3,048 m) in 1 minute 34 seconds." 

This is from another forum written by our own R Leonard;


_This was “Operation Pogo Stick" conducted as a demonstration at the Cleveland Air Race, November 22, 1946. An F8F-1 piloted by Comdr. Bill Leonard set a new time to climb record, from a dead stop to 10K feet in 97.8 seconds, including a 150 foot take off run. Unfortunately, he didn't get to keep the record very long. Lieut. Comdr. Butch Davenport came along about 15 minutes later and set the next new record of 94 seconds, also in an F8F-1 in a 115 foot take off run. Leonard's take off was into an estimated 30 kt head wind, by the time Davenport took off the head wind was over 40 kts. These wind speeds helped to reduce the time on the ground. Both were assigned to TACTEST at the time; Cdr Leonard was TACTEST projects officer. Lt Cdr Davenport was the F8F project officer. The F8F’s used were the standard Navy aircraft, armed, with ammunition. The planes were modified, however, to allow full emergency military power with the landing gear down, something you couldn’t do in a stock airplane due to safety locks. 

The rapid climb to altitude was the F8F's bread and butter. The plane was to have been the solution to the kamikaze problem ... rapid climb capability, firepower, speed, and more (better) maneuverability than the F6F or F4U. 

I’ve heard folks say that that Leonard and Davenport pretty well trashed the engines on their planes, but that is not so. This was not a spur of the moment stunt ". . . Hey, let’s go up to Cleveland . . . I hear they’re having an Air Race today . . . Maybe we can set a record of some kind". Actually they’d been practicing back at Patuxent with the same planes used in Cleveland, doing (without checking logs) three or four practice runs each. After the demonstration they flew those same planes back to TACTEST. 

Somewhere around here I’ve got some pictures of Leonard and his plane maybe some of Davenport, too.

Regards,

Rich Leonard
(not a coincidence)_


----------



## GregP (Jun 18, 2012)

The Bearcat used had guns but I don't know if it had any ammo ... probably not. It had all the Naval gear including arrester hook.

As I said, it was a STOCK U.S. Navy F8F-2, perhaps with some engine tweaks, but all the gear was in place. We have heard this feat described by visiting former pilots who were there and gave lectures at the museum. They never described the state of the bearcat other than that it was a "stock, standard Bearcat, clean." So we know it had no external fuel or ordnance, but everything else was there including the radio since they spoke with the pilot on the way up.

Edit: 

I see from FlyboyJ's post above the plane was an F8F-1. That is different from what we heard, but both were Bearcats. I see Mr. Leonard says it had ammo, too. Live an learn.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 18, 2012)

A Spitfire LF.IX managed time to climb of 2min 10s (130s) using +25psi boost, PN150 fuel and a weight of 7400lb. This appears to be at or near max loaded weight.

Spitfire IX Trials at +25 boost

Not sure if that includes the take off roll, possibly not.

Imagine what it could do with +30psi boost and being lightly loaded (say 6000lb).

One of the Prototype XIVs managed 2.3 minutes to 10,000ft, at 8400lb. Using +18psi boost only.

Spitfire Mk XIV Performance


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 18, 2012)

94 sec to FL100, even with a headwind, is phenomenally hard to wrap your mind around for a prop fighter. That's amazing no matter how you look at it.


----------



## GregP (Jun 18, 2012)

Yes, it IS. Also amazing is watch the Reno racers, after the end of the gold race, cross the finish line and pull up at about 60° and get to 5 - 6,000 feet in just seconds at 480 - 500 mph.


----------



## Timppa (Jun 19, 2012)

wuzak said:


> A Spitfire LF.IX managed time to climb of 2min 10s (130s) using +25psi boost, PN150 fuel and a weight of 7400lb. This appears to be at or near max loaded weight.
> 
> Spitfire IX Trials at +25 boost


This is a good reality check for performance:
Spitfire IX, +25lb/in^2 boost, 7400lb weight: Power between 0-10,000 ft: average 1900 hp. Time to 10,000 ft: 130s.
3,9 lb/hp = 4,610 fpm

Stock F8F-1: weight 9,600 lbs, power needed to same weight/power - ratio: 2460 hp
Stock F8F-2: weight: 10,400 lb, power needed to same weight/power -ratio: 2670 hp.

And according to the legend the climb rate was 6,400 fpm.

Lyle Sheltons Bearcat had 4000+ hp with much less weight for the alleged performance.

The numbers just don't add up.


----------



## GregP (Jun 19, 2012)

A stock F8F-2 Bearcat weighs in at 7,650 pounds empty weight. If you want to set a record, you can fly it quite light, with just fuel and pilot, and you'd barely break 8,000 pounds.

The weights you quoted are operational weights, as it would be if flown from a carrier on a mission.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 19, 2012)

F8F-1 empty weight is 7,070. 15 minutes of fuel and a pilot would be well under 8,000 pounds. The 1946 record was set at near sea level. I'm not 100% sure but I think Shelton flew his Bearcat at Stead, over 4,000 feet above sea level at 1000F (just kidding, but it is very hot there)


----------



## krieghund (Jun 19, 2012)

OK I found my F8F-1 charts to compare to the F8F-2 charts posted earlier.


----------



## krieghund (Jun 19, 2012)

I also have this chart to compare against other US Aircraft. In this chart the XF8F-1 is climbing at 5850fpm.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 19, 2012)

I doubt those charts are "legends."

At 9386 pounds with full internal fuel it's showing 4570 fpm at sea level, 10,000' at 2.6 minutes. With a 30 or 40 knot head wind that 4570 fpm is going to be a lot higher. I see nothing "unbelieveable" about the 1946 record. The only "cheat" was the head winds and note that the charts show no head winds greater than 25 knts


----------



## krieghund (Jun 19, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I doubt those charts are "legends."s



"10-9?"


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 19, 2012)

krieghund said:


> "10-9?"


 Meaning they are accurate and authentic


----------



## wuzak (Jun 19, 2012)

Timppa said:


> This is a good reality check for performance:
> Spitfire IX, +25lb/in^2 boost, 7400lb weight: Power between 0-10,000 ft: average 1900 hp. Time to 10,000 ft: 130s.
> 3,9 lb/hp = 4,610 fpm
> 
> ...



The Spitfire was at or near its maximum weight.

Empty weight for a IX is 5000-odd pounds.

For the F8F-2 at 8000lbs the power (for the same p/w ratio as the Spit) is 2051hp.


----------



## krieghund (Jun 19, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Meaning they are accurate and authentic



10-4


----------



## davparlr (Jun 19, 2012)

wuzak said:


> The Spitfire was at or near its maximum weight.
> 
> Empty weight for a IX is 5000-odd pounds.
> 
> For the F8F-2 at 8000lbs the power (for the same p/w ratio as the Spit) is 2051hp.



Ray Wagner's book "American Combat Planes" show the engine for an F8F-2 as being an R-2800-34W with 2300 take-off hp.


----------



## krieghund (Jun 19, 2012)

davparlr said:


> Ray Wagner's book "American Combat Planes" show the engine for an F8F-2 as being an R-2800-34W with 2300 take-off hp.



The US Navy charts indicates a -30W version


----------



## wuzak (Jun 19, 2012)

davparlr said:


> Ray Wagner's book "American Combat Planes" show the engine for an F8F-2 as being an R-2800-34W with 2300 take-off hp.


 
I was just following Timppa's reasoning.

Not saying that is how much power the F8F had.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 19, 2012)

There were 4 engines used in the F8F series. The XF8F-1 used an R-2800-22W, the XF8F-1 also used the R-2800-34W as did the F8F-1 and F8F-1B (and other -1s?) while the XF8F-2 used the R-2800-30W (semi-production) and the F8F-2 and XF8F-3 used the R-2800-30W production engine. at least that is what this says : http://www.enginehistory.org/P&W/R-2800/DoubleWaspIndex.pdf

all of these engines had water injection but all the military horse power ratings are dry ( no water injection) and WER ratings are not given.


----------



## GregP (Jun 19, 2012)

Shouldn't we move this stuff to a thread about Bearcats?


----------



## krieghund (Jun 22, 2012)

Here is an excerpt from an USN report on the Ki-61 compared to contemporary USN fighters, of interest is the F8F and F4U-4;


----------



## Hop (Jun 22, 2012)

F8F-2 weight 10,400 lbs = 4,727 kg

Force required to lift 4,727 kg at 9.8g = 46,325 n

Energy required to get to 3,048m = 141,198,600 j

Power required to do it in 94 seconds = 1502113 w

1502 kw = 2,014 hp

That assumes the plane is already flying at climbing speed. As it was stationary, we also have to work out the power required to accelerate up to climbing speed.

Assuming best climb is at 160 mph, but that wind speed is 40 mph, the plane has to accelerate to 120 mph.

Power required to accelerate from 0 to 190 km/h = 70 kw, 94 hp

So power required is an average of 2,108 hp over the 94 seconds.

However, that ignores several things. Firstly, prop efficiency. A WW2 propeller is typically about 80% efficient. So the engine needs to be producing about 2,630 hp

Finally, you have to account for drag. The plane needs an air speed of about 160 mph. Drag (including induced drag) will be quite high. The plane needs 2,630 hp _excess_ hp, ie 2,630hp more than the power required to maintain level flight at 160 mph.

Unless I've made mistakes in the physics (which is entirely possible), the F8F needed to be either a lot lighter, or have a lot more more power than normal, to reach 10,000 ft in 94 seconds.



> With a 30 or 40 knot head wind that 4570 fpm is going to be a lot higher.



The headwind will make no difference to the climb rate. 

The only effects will be to make the ground distance covered during the climb smaller, and to reduce the speed the aircraft has to accelerate to from a standstill (ie a plane stationary on the runway in a 40mph headwind already has an indicated air speed of 40 mph)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 22, 2012)

Hop said:


> F8F-2 weight 10,400 lbs = 4,727 kg
> 
> Force required to lift 4,727 kg at 9.8g = 46,325 n
> 
> ...


It probably was a lot lighter - your calcualtions are based at over 10,000 pounds. Do the same calculations with 50 gallons of fuel





Hop said:


> The headwind will make no difference to the climb rate.
> 
> The only effects will be to make the ground distance covered during the climb smaller, and to reduce the speed the aircraft has to accelerate to from a standstill (ie a plane stationary on the runway in a 40mph headwind already has an indicated air speed of 40 mph)



Think about this...

Climb performance is based on excess thrust. Excess thrust is used to create lift. If the headwind is providing you with X amount of lift, there is more excess thrust available. This extra thrust increases your speed. To maintain climb speed with a headwind you must increase the angle of attack. If you increase your angle of attack while maintaining climb speed you increase your rate of climb, *especially as you climb the head wind gradient is increasing* (more lift, more excess thrust available) which it normally does at altitude.

I have flown aircraft where I normally see 500 - 800 fpm. Add a 20 or 30 knot head wind and I see 800 - 1000 fpm (or more), all at the same Vx.


----------



## Timppa (Jun 22, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I have flown aircraft where I normally see 500 - 800 fpm. Add a 20 or 30 knot head wind and I see 800 - 1000 fpm (or more), all at the same Vx.



Temporary or sustained ?

Im with Hop in this. Headwind/downwind does not affect sustained climb rate.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 22, 2012)

Timppa said:


> Temporary or sustained ?
> 
> Im with Hop in this. Headwind/downwind does not affect sustained climb rate.



Temporary - wind gradients change as does other aspects of the weather. As stated *"normally"* see 500 - 800 fpm. Add a 20 or 30 knot head wind and I see 800 - 1000 fpm (or more), all at the same Vx."

This is all based on a "Temporary" weather condition providing extra performance to aircraft.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 22, 2012)

From the story it seems that the 2 pilots had practiced this several times before the try for the record at the air races. They probably had the fuel load worked out and there may have been a bit of fudging about the ammo load. I don't know about 1946 but earlier the navy seemed to have at least 2 ammo loads for some of it's fighters, "standard" and "overload" with 'standard' being around 200rpg and "overload" the full capacity of the ammo boxes. 
The most important piece of data we are missing is what the actual power level was on that day. The engines were fitted for water injection and the power level with water injection is hard to come by, we also don't know if the pilots in question were using a couple of "extra" inches of MAP for these flights. From Krieghund's posts it seems the "official" rating of the F8F-1 was 2380hp for take off and 2400hp at 1000ft in "combat" or wet mode. Power in low gear was falling off the higher it went but is there a possibility that they could shift into high gear lower than normal?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 22, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Temporary - wind gradients change as does other aspects of the weather. As stated *normally* see 500 - 800 fpm. Add a 20 or 30 knot head wind and I see 800 - 1000 fpm (or more), all at the same Vx.



I could be way off with this idea. What happens with gliders? 

No power (or power off) is there a difference in the glide slope from no wind to head and/or tail wind. Distance over ground will certainly change for the same loss in altitude but does the actual glide slope change at all?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 22, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> From the story it seems that the 2 pilots had practiced this several times before the try for the record at the air races. They probably had the fuel load worked out and there may have been a bit of fudging about the ammo load. I don't know about 1946 but earlier the navy seemed to have at least 2 ammo loads for some of it's fighters, "standard" and "overload" with 'standard' being around 200rpg and "overload" the full capacity of the ammo boxes.
> The most important piece of data we are missing is what the actual power level was on that day. The engines were fitted for water injection and the power level with water injection is hard to come by, we also don't know if the pilots in question were using a couple of "extra" inches of MAP for these flights. From Krieghund's posts it seems the "official" rating of the F8F-1 was 2380hp for take off and 2400hp at 1000ft in "combat" or wet mode. Power in low gear was falling off the higher it went but is there a possibility that they could shift into high gear lower than normal?



That combined with a minimal fuel load, 40 knot head wind (that increased in altitude) makes this feat very "do-able." And to continue the discussion with the head wind, this is only a "temporary" advantage that was available that day that helped this feat to be accomplished.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 22, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> I could be way off with this idea. What happens with gliders?
> 
> No power (or power off) is there a difference in the glide slope from no wind to head and/or tail wind. Distance over ground will certainly change for the same loss in altitude but does the actual glide slope change at all?


When you say "glide slope" I'm assuming you're actually meaining "glide ratio" - the ratio of the distance forward to downward. In a headwind you will have lift being generated over the wing, again "excess thrust." That excess thrust will allow you to increase angle of attack and thus increase life and in the end gain altitude IF SUSTAINED.


----------



## Timppa (Jun 22, 2012)

Even the F8F manual does not give the "wet" (water-methanol -injection) -rating of the engine. I have seen figures of 2,800 hp.
And the plane apparently was the F8F-1 model ( 9,600 lbgross, with guns and ammo, but the fuel load is not known), not the heavier F8F-2.
Cleveland (Ohio) airport is at 800 ft altitude. So was the climb actually to 10,000ft pressure height ?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 22, 2012)

Timppa said:


> Even the F8F manual does not give the "wet" (water-methanol -injection) -rating of the engine. I have seen figures of 2,800 hp.
> And the plane apparently was the F8F-1 model ( 9,600 lbgross, with guns and ammo, but the fuel load is not known), not the heavier F8F-2.
> Cleveland (Ohio) airport is at 800 ft altitude. So was the climb actually to 10,000ft pressure height ?


And surface temperature needs to be calculated as well.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 22, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> When you say "glide slope" I'm assuming you're actually meaining "glide ratio" - the ratio of the distance forward to downward. In a headwind you will have lift being generated over the wing, again "excess thrust." That excess thrust will allow you to increase angle of attack and thus increase life and in the end gain altitude IF SUSTAINED.



Yes, glide ratio.


----------



## Hop (Jun 22, 2012)

> It probably was a lot lighter - your calcualtions are based at over 10,000 pounds. Do the same calculations with 50 gallons of fuel



It's certainly possible with enough weight removed. I won't bother redoing the calculations because I have no idea of the power required to overcome drag, or any other losses.



> Think about this...
> 
> Climb performance is based on excess thrust. Excess thrust is used to create lift. If the headwind is providing you with X amount of lift, there is more excess thrust available.



Headwind doesn't provide lift. Once airborne, the plane is free to move with the air. To the aircraft, there is no difference between an airspeed of 160 mph in still air and 160 mph in a 40 mph headwind. The only difference is in ground speed.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 22, 2012)

Is that not the reason why a wing would lift in a wind tunnel?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 22, 2012)

Hop said:


> It's certainly possible with enough weight removed. I won't bother redoing the calculations because I have no idea of the power required to overcome drag, or any other losses.
> 
> 
> 
> Headwind doesn't provide lift. Once airborne, the plane is free to move with the air. To the aircraft, there is no difference between an airspeed of 160 mph in still air and 160 mph in a 40 mph headwind. The only difference is in ground speed.


This has nothing to do with ground speed. Headwind is proving you with excess thrust. Excess thrust provides lift, if angle of attack is increased thus a greater rate of climb.


----------



## Hop (Jun 22, 2012)

> Is that not the reason why a wing would lift in a wind tunnel?



Only if it's tethered. Then the tether acts the same as an engine and prop, it pushes the wing "forward". In other words, there's no difference between the air moving and the wing remaining stationary, or the wing moving and the air remaining stationary.

If the wing isn't tethered then it just gets blown to the back of the wind tunnel.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 22, 2012)

If the air is moving towards you (such as in a head wind)then you will be hitting more molecules on the bottom of the wing, which would increase density which would give you additional lift. That is the reason why aircraft are launched from CV's in the wind (thus creating an artificial head wind).


----------



## wuzak (Jun 22, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> That combined with a minimal fuel load, 40 knot head wind (that increased in altitude) makes this feat very "do-able." And to continue the discussion with the head wind, this is only a "temporary" advantage that was available that day that helped this feat to be accomplished.



You may get that 40kn headwind on a carrier when that steams into the prevailing wind to launch the F8F.

Or, to use your phrase, the carrier is providing excess thrust.


----------



## GregP (Jun 22, 2012)

Hey, all that is only for the impulse engines. Once you cut in warp drive, it's a different story! ... as long as the dilithium crystals can take it, that is. Sorry, couldn't resist ...

Back to reality, the empty weight of the F8F-1 is 7,070 pounds. Add maybe 300 pounds for fuel and maybe 200 pounds for pilot, helmet, flight suit, etc, and you COULD be flying at about 7,600 pounds with about 2,500 HP, give or take 150 HP. If they wanted to set a record, all they'd have had to do was increase the manifold rpessure by, say, 10 inches of Mercury and rpm by 100 or so. Then they'd have had the 2,700 HP or so they needed. The R-2800 will DO that all day and shrug it off. We operate several R-2800's and almost all of them have been overboosted from time to time. They take it in stride as long as the changes are gradual.

Radials don't like tio change rpm or manifold pressure quickly, so the only time they usuall change both quickly is during the takeoff run. After that, smooth and gentle is the normal operating procedure.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 23, 2012)

Who was responsible for the equipment used to check time and altitude. If someone was doing it with a stopwatch and a theodolite then small errors could lead to a big variation in timings. For an official record a set of calibrated and sealed altimeters and timing devices would need to be fitted to the plane and several sets of ground timing equipment and theodolites would be needed for averaging purposes. 

Not saying the Bear couldnt do it but was all this equipment available if not then it cant be a proper record time. I am always wary of "we did so many in such a time" records because from my own experience people are very bad at accurate timing and measuring unless they are trained surveyors.


----------



## R Leonard (Jun 23, 2012)

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.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 23, 2012)

I've been waiting for you to chime in! Thanks for the post, as usual you're a wealth of knowledge and an asset to this forum. Your participation is highly appreciated!!!!!


----------



## GregP (Jun 24, 2012)

Thanks R Leonard for sharing that and we all appreciate your input, especially from both the logbook and from personal recollections.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 24, 2012)

Thanks Indeed, I especially was moved by your dinner anecdote as much as your post's technical content. May I say it's a gift beyond price to have a son who exhibits respect and a keen interest in the history his father both lived and made.


----------



## Timppa (Jun 27, 2012)

R Leonard said:


> 8 Nov - - F8F-1 b/n 94803 - - pilot remarks: test climb 2 mins 15 secs to 10000 from standing start - military power
> _It's difficult to determine from the file, but the U.S. national record in 1946 was either ;Fastest Climb to 10,000 Feet,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._
> ...



Certainly enough for me, and I was wrong.
After actually doing some calculations of the climb rate with my spreadsheet I think now that the climb rate is perfectly possible, calculating with a weight of 9045 lb (F8F-1 with half fuel), with a average power rating between 0-10,000 ft, MIL=2000hp and combat(wet) rating of 2,800 hp.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 27, 2012)

Going back to the original question, the F2G was about 2500 lbs heavier by empty weight than the F8F but didn't seem to provide any advantage in performance. The F8F seemed to be the best choice. In reality, both planes had been bypassed by technology and even the F8F was soon displaced by jets. Due to performance requirements of carrier operations, the Navy jets lagged behind performance of of land based aircraft until some advances in engine technology, and possibly carrier design, did the Navy field some really great jet fighters that took a back seat to no one, starting with the magnificent (one of my favorite aircraft) F8U.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2012)

The F2G didn't perform as well as hoped and the F4U-5 wound up doing anything the F2G could and more.


----------



## renrich (Jun 27, 2012)

The F8F was replaced on carrier decks by the F4U, not by jets. The F8F was not as good air to ground as the F4U-Linnekin, "80 Knots to Mach Two)


----------



## GregP (Jun 27, 2012)

The title of this thread is Goodyear F2G vs. FF Bearcat. It has been conclusively proven that the bearcat performed better as a fighter or as an interceptor.

They made 10 Goodyear F2G Corsairs and about 1,265 F8F Bearcats. So you already KNOW which one was better in the eyes of the Navy.

The reason the Bearcat was retired had nothing whatsoever to do with the Corsair being "Better". The Jet age was here and they had a very large inventory of Corsairs, and not many Bearcats. They elected to cease piston fighter production, go with the existing F4U Corsairs for piston duties, and get some value from the few Bearcats by selling them to France and Siam. That is from several former Navy pilots during that time when they gave presentations at the Planes of Fame. To a man, they all preferred the Bearcat, but you have to fly what the navy has on line at the time since there aren't other aircraft avaialble as an alternate mount.

The number of Corsairs in good shape, the number of spare parts, and the available trained manpower were the deciding factors. If the war had continued, the Beaercats would have been in combat pronto, believe me. But it didn't and they were sold off to foreign governments while they still had some value.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 27, 2012)

renrich said:


> The F8F was replaced on carrier decks by the F4U, not by jets. The F8F was not as good air to ground as the F4U-Linnekin, "80 Knots to Mach Two)


 
I believe the main purpose of the F8F was fleet defense fighter. By the time the F8F was being phased out in the late 40s early fifties I doubt the F4U was taking over that role. Most sites rightly or wrongly state that the F8F was replaced by the F9F and F2H.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 28, 2012)

davparlr said:


> I believe the main purpose of the F8F was fleet defense fighter. By the time the F8F was being phased out in the late 40s early fifties I doubt the F4U was taking over that role. Most sites rightly or wrongly state that the F8F was ultimately replaced by the F9F and F2H.



That is my understanding as well. Although the McDonnell FH1 and -2 and Grumman F9F-2 evidently began entering service starting around about the Fall of 1947 to late summer 1948 (for the FH-2). During the interim between the end of WW2 and these aircraft coming on line, 24 squadrons of F8F bearcats were in service to provide carrier air defense. During that period, the navy tried to enter the jet age with the procurement of limited quantities of Ryan FR-1 Fireball, North American FJ-1 Furies and FH-1 Phantom 1. 

Side note on the F9F, those of you who saw Top Gun may be interested to know the fictional events depicted in the film have an actual counterpart that was perhaps the inspiration for the plot although that would perhaps give Hollywood far more credit than it deserves for putting history on celluloid. On November 18, 1952, a division of 4 USN F9F-5s from reserve squadron Vf-781 of the Oriskany's air wing were jumped by 7 Mig 15s. A detailed account is provided at: 

F9F-5 Panther Pilot Bags 3 MIGs


----------



## renrich (Jun 28, 2012)

I stand corrected (somewhat) Linnekin who flew the Bearcat operationally, states that the Midway class carriers retained the F4Us in their VFB and VF squadrons. The smaller carriers ( Essex class) flew Bearcats. " By late 1948 the VFB squadrons started to reverting to Corsairs. With the advent of the first jets and the Korean War, the remaining Bearcats were removed from service and turned over to the reserves." My memory, along with some other equipment is becoming worn out.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 28, 2012)

renrich said:


> I stand corrected (somewhat) Linnekin who flew the Bearcat operationally, states that the Midway class carriers retained the F4Us in their VFB and VF squadrons. The smaller carriers ( Essex class) flew Bearcats. " By late 1948 the VFB squadrons started to reverting to Corsairs. With the advent of the first jets and the Korean War, the remaining Bearcats were removed from service and turned over to the reserves." My memory, along with some other equipment is becoming worn out.



I think you may be correct after all. Let's look at the numbers. 24 VF squadrons (at 24 aircraft per squadron) may be embarked on 24 carriers, with dial role F4U's and attack ADs, along with TBFs and Grumman Guardians to provide the AEW and ASW role (airborne early warning and Anti-Sub Warfare) and fill out the airwing. I don't believe all of the 24 Essex class were in commission post war, but the big three CVB's were and all three operating by about 1947-48 and some of the light carriers as wel during this periodl. I wouldn't be surprised, considering the number of available flight decks, that F4U's were still in service providing an air defense role on number of carriers. I would expect Linnekin to be an authority on this topic. My inclination is to defer to your memory of what he reported.


----------



## renrich (Jun 29, 2012)

I keep pushing Linnekin's book on this forum to the point that some may think I get a slice of the profit. Not true! His book is highly readable, informative, sometimes funny and it provides the reader with information about flying which enlightens a non veteran pilot ( which I am) about some of the real truth about air combat. In other words all the performance statistics which we read about and joyfully proclaim as the reason that our favorite fighter of WW2 is the uber fighter are not necessarily the deciding factor. An example is when he was engaged in a mock "dog fight" with an A4 while Linnekin was in an airplane he had much operational experience in, the F8U. No contest, right? wrong! In that tactical situation, Linnekin could not gain the advantage.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 29, 2012)

renrich said:


> An example is when he was engaged in a mock "dog fight" with an A4 while Linnekin was in an airplane he had much operational experience in, the F8U. No contest, right? wrong! In that tactical situation, Linnekin could not gain the advantage.



Not too big a surprise. A4 Skooters have been used as ersatz fighters by some foreign navy's operating small carriers with small airwings. During the Vietnam unpleasantness, an A-4 took out a Mig-17 with a Zuni air-to-ground rocket. I believe there were even a few a2a kills of migs by the venerable A-1. 

Even the A-6, which would appear to be rather ungainly in a dog fight was not at a complete disadvantage. F-4 ACM teams providing A-6 and EA-6B aircrew with ACM experience claimed it had some significant A2A advantages if (it was able to avoid a vertical fight???) and fight more to its strengths (although, truth be told, I don't recall many strengths except for the wing which as I recall gave it a fair amount of relatively low speed manueverability.) As I recall, it was a dog above about 30,000 ft.


----------



## GregP (Jun 29, 2012)

I never knew an A-6 ever GOT to 30,000 feet!

Same for the F-111. 

I have a very good friend who restified at a Congressional hearing about the F-111.

He was asked is the F-111 was any good above 30,000 feet. he responded that he didn't know. The only time he fever got above 1,500 feet was when he needed to refuel. He was told that Congress was informed the view from the cockpit was not good and he responded that he didn't really know since he usually flew at 2:00 am in the monring when it was dark. He was aksed if it was fast and said it was the only plane in the US inventory, as far as he knew, that could pull a 6-g turn for 45 seconds and still be supersonic. He added that he wanted to be in an F-111 if asked to attack ANYTHING outside the USA.


----------



## renrich (Jul 1, 2012)

I have a good friend who flew an evaluation fight between an A6 and a captured Mig 21 during the war in VN. He said that their intel about the Mig was mostly inaccurate and that it was hopeless unless he got very low and hoped to run the Mig out of fuel.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jul 1, 2012)

renrich said:


> I have a good friend who flew an evaluation fight between an A6 and a captured Mig 21 during the war in VN. He said that their intel about the Mig was mostly inaccurate and that it was hopeless unless he got very low and hoped to run the Mig out of fuel.



IIRC That sounds pretty much like the same advice given to PBY pilots encountering A6M's early in WW2... I bet it would work about as good.


----------



## R Leonard (Jul 1, 2012)

Except the PBY crew could at least shoot back.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jul 1, 2012)

and the A-6 couldn't shoot anything at all (at least until late in the war when I've heard some were carrying sidewinders just in case or perhaps like a scare crow?)


Rich, did your dad ever talk about the relative quality of the F2A-1, -2 or -3 vs the F4F-3 and F4F-4? I don't know if you've posted on this topic before but would be very interested to know anything he might have said on this topic.


----------



## R Leonard (Jul 1, 2012)

Had to check the list, 85 total types/variants (49 different types including 36 variants of 16 of those types). He had no F2A time.


----------



## renrich (Jul 1, 2012)

The other interesting remark my friend made was that even though they knew the Mig was coming they did not see it until it was on top of them. Whatever he tried to do, all he could hear on the radio was, "tracking Atoll, tracking Atoll, tracking guns, tracking guns."


----------



## GregP (Jul 1, 2012)

I think it is a very big mistake not to put a gun on an attack plane or a fighter. Sure, you give up some small payload, but you also give the pilot some self defence capability.

If teh A-6 HAD a gun, I wonder what it could have done given the premise taht the ordnance racks were empty. Without bombs I KNOW it could turn quite well.


----------



## renrich (Jul 1, 2012)

They had been told that in a hard turn at 250 knots the Mig could not follow as it would stall out. Wrong! But a gun would certainly have given the A6 some hope one would think.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jul 1, 2012)

yep, clean it was surprisingly agile with a pretty small turn radius. If it had been primarily a day bomber, a gun might have made more sense. The A-1, A-4 and A-7 all had guns. However, the A-6 was designed to attack at night or in weather that was as close as possible to zero-zero conditions. Not much else flying then so a gun seemed extraneous. Of course the realities of war typically mean, if it can carry ordnance, it's going to be used to move mud and it did indeed move a lot of it in the daylight.


----------



## GregP (Jul 1, 2012)

The MiG-21 has a lot of good points and a lot of bad olnes, too.

It is agile but the pilot has very poor visibility through the windscreen and LARGE gunsight. It is reasonably fast but has NO range at all unless it carries external fuel tanks, and that limits the missile armament. Still, in competent hands, it is a dangerous opponent.

All in all, it is a pretty decent little air superiority fighter, particularly when fitted with the Israeli avionics upgrades.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 3, 2012)

GregP said:


> He added that he wanted to be in an F-111 if asked to attack ANYTHING outside the USA.



I guess a less performing aircraft would be acceptable if he was going to attack anything inside the USA?

When I was working the on the B-2, the two AF reps to my Controls and Displays committee were FB-111 crewmen, a pilot and an Weapons Systems Operator (WSO). The FB-111 was a two man crew as the proposed B-2 was and is. I was surprised to learn that the only bomber assigned to downtown Moscow, and other high value targets, was the FB-111. This was in the early 80s. I think the F-111 was is one of the more unappreciated aircraft. The WSO community was quite upset when the WSO position, now called mission commander, was assigned to a pilot rating.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jul 5, 2012)

davparlr said:


> The WSO community was quite upset when the WSO position, now called mission commander, was assigned to a pilot rating.



It's interesting how the two cultures: WSOs and NFOs have fared in their respective services. I have been told by USAF pilots and WSOs that there is some amount of bias against WSOs or any non-pilot flying officer in the USAF, whereas in the USN command opportunities are relatively abundant and there is a more collegial relationship between the two. Of course there are exceptions. I was once told by an A-7 pilot that he'd trade any NFO for an equal weight in JP-5 any day of the week. 

I have always wondered whether the apparent difference in status may have something to do with the historical context of each: IIUC the USAAC, USAAF and USAF originally selected their non-flying officer billets from those that failed flight training, so there was perhaps some stigma attached to them. In the USN, the NFO has a long history of both flight experience and a separate designation path beginning with the _Naval Aviation Oberver_ in the earliest days of powered flight. That evolved slowly into the completely independent training and designation pathway for non-pilot specialists. In fact the original name of the Pensacola based training squadron through which modern NFOs passed on their way to their wings was: *Basic Naval Aviation Observer *(BNAO) School until about 1968. Affectionately referred to as _*Banana School*_ leading naval aviators to joke about feeding their NFOs a banana to get him to do his job (like a trained monkey). I am not sure what was done in WW2 and would be surprised if the ranks of navigators and bombardiers weren't filled by those who flunked pilot training, however AFAIK the existence of a separate path to non-pilot "wings" was continued.


----------



## Harry64 (Jul 10, 2012)

krieghund said:


> Here are the F-51H charts



Krieghund, do you have any charts from the *Republic XP-72*, as he used also the R-4360 as the F2G. Maybe interesting to compare the two performance datas.

Harry


----------



## davparlr (Jul 10, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> It's interesting how the two cultures: WSOs and NFOs have fared in their respective services. I have been told by USAF pilots and WSOs that there is some amount of bias against WSOs or any non-pilot flying officer in the USAF, whereas in the USN command opportunities are relatively abundant and there is a more collegial relationship between the two. Of course there are exceptions. I was once told by an A-7 pilot that he'd trade any NFO for an equal weight in JP-5 any day of the week.
> 
> I have always wondered whether the apparent difference in status may have something to do with the historical context of each: IIUC the USAAC, USAAF and USAF originally selected their non-flying officer billets from those that failed flight training, so there was perhaps some stigma attached to them. In the USN, the NFO has a long history of both flight experience and a separate designation path beginning with the _Naval Aviation Oberver_ in the earliest days of powered flight. That evolved slowly into the completely independent training and designation pathway for non-pilot specialists. In fact the original name of the Pensacola based training squadron through which modern NFOs passed on their way to their wings was: *Basic Naval Aviation Observer *(BNAO) School until about 1968. Affectionately referred to as _*Banana School*_ leading naval aviators to joke about feeding their NFOs a banana to get him to do his job (like a trained monkey). I am not sure what was done in WW2 and would be surprised if the ranks of navigators and bombardiers weren't filled by those who flunked pilot training, however AFAIK the existence of a separate path to non-pilot "wings" was continued.



There was certainly a lot of banter in the cockpit. I have heard the reverse banana comment about pilots. In general, I don't know. I have known Navs who have washed out of pilot training, one for air sickness????, but I do know that the three senior officers in our pilot training class were previous navs/wsos so I guess not all navs came from wash-outs.


----------



## Cowboy40 (Jan 21, 2013)

Does anyone have the Pilot's handbook for the F2G they would be wiling to share?


----------



## GregP (Jan 21, 2013)

I can't understand who would give a care about the F2G Corsair. There were only 10 made and they didn't do anything. The F2G was nothing.

They made around 1,265 Bearcats and they were operationl with several air forces.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 21, 2013)

The F2G won the Cleveland air races a couple of times?

People are fascinated by some German planes that did nothing, why not some equal time for allied planes?


----------



## GregP (Jan 24, 2013)

OK Shortround6 ... fair enough. 

Then I'll take a Boeing F8B. 

They only made 3, but it was a wonder at a time when pistons were fading and jets were being loved without consideration of their actual capabilities.


----------



## grampi (Aug 22, 2013)

The claim of a stock Bearcat going from a dead stop to 10000 ft in anywhere close to 1.5 mins is not plausable. Rare Bear did it in 91 seconds, but it's considerably lighter than a stocker, and it did it with a Curtis Wright 3350 with somewhere between 3000 and 4000 HP...the only other version that came close to this was the G-58A (Gulfhawk 4) which had a stock R-2800, but it was almost 3000 lbs lighter than a stock Bearcat, and would do it in 98 seconds. Claiming a stocker could do it as fast as claimed just doesn't jive with the numbers....


----------



## grampi (Aug 22, 2013)

GregP said:


> OK Shortround6 ... fair enough.
> 
> Then I'll take a Boeing F8B.
> 
> They only made 3, but it was a wonder at a time when pistons were fading and jets were being loved without consideration of their actual capabilities.



Not even close to a Bearcat. The F8B's climb rate was only 2800 fpm...or about half that of the Bearcat...


----------



## GregP (Aug 22, 2013)

grampi,

The F8B wasn't a dedicated fighter. The 2,800 fpm is with a full load of stores that rivaled a Skyradier. When it was empty in fighter mode, it was quite agile and powerful.


----------



## grampi (Aug 22, 2013)

GregP said:


> grampi,
> 
> The F8B wasn't a dedicated fighter. The 2,800 fpm is with a full load of stores that rivaled a Skyradier. When it was empty in fighter mode, it was quite agile and powerful.


 
There's no way it could hang with a Bearcat....


----------



## GregP (Aug 22, 2013)

Sure it could. All it had to do was fly for 400 miles and the Bearcat would be out of fuel. 

That would leave the F8B with only another 2,000+ miles of range to do something with the 6,400 pounds of bombs it was carrying.


----------



## silence (Aug 22, 2013)

First I'd ever heard of the F8B. My God! That thing was a beast! Looks like it could give birth to a P-47 - or four Spitfires.


----------



## GregP (Aug 22, 2013)

It was a real possibility when it was being developed, but the war situation (winding down to a win) coupled with jet developments spelled its demise. It COULD have been the Skyraider of the future, but the Skyradier is one of my all-time favorites, so I'm glad the F8B didn't win that one. 

The Skyraider spec produced four contending airframes, and I have no idea why the F8B was never considered for the role. It had good capabilities and would have been formidable with six 20 mm wing-mounted cannons. It was also 100 mph faster than the Skyraider. I'm sure SOMEBODY knows the story.


----------



## grampi (Aug 23, 2013)

GregP said:


> Sure it could. All it had to do was fly for 400 miles and the Bearcat would be out of fuel.
> 
> That would leave the F8B with only another 2,000+ miles of range to do something with the 6,400 pounds of bombs it was carrying.



I thought we were talking about climb performance?


----------



## grampi (Aug 23, 2013)

Here's a thought. Why is time to climb always measured from the ground to 10000 feet? Of course the Bearcat is gonna win that race every time. How about comparing the Beacat to a P-51 in a climb comparison from 20000 to 30000 feet? That would be a different story....


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 23, 2013)

A lot of the climbs to altitude had to do with interceptions. How long would it take for a fighter sitting on the ground to reach the altitude that the bombers were flying. Cross that time with the speed of the bombers and you know how far away you have to detect the bombers in order to intercept before they reach the target. Please remember that radar was by no means universal in the early years of WW II. 
Patrolling at 20,000ft if you expect bombers at 30,000ft isn't really done even though such a performance number is a better indicator of "combat potential" in the 20-30,000ft range. 

Combat potential in the sense of regaining altitude for a second attack, for acceleration after slowing down after maneuvers, of surplus power allowing the plane to keep up ( or not loose as much) speed in a turn.


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 23, 2013)

grampi said:


> The claim of a stock Bearcat going from a dead stop to 10000 ft in anywhere close to 1.5 mins is not plausable. Rare Bear did it in 91 seconds, but it's considerably lighter than a stocker, and it did it with a Curtis Wright 3350 with somewhere between 3000 and 4000 HP...the only other version that came close to this was the G-58A (Gulfhawk 4) which had a stock R-2800, but it was almost 3000 lbs lighter than a stock Bearcat, and would do it in 98 seconds. Claiming a stocker could do it as fast as claimed just doesn't jive with the numbers....



It happened; whether you think it was plausible or not is irrelevant.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 23, 2013)

grampi said:


> The claim of a stock Bearcat going from a dead stop to 10000 ft in anywhere close to 1.5 mins is not plausable. Rare Bear did it in 91 seconds, but it's considerably lighter than a stocker, and it did it with a Curtis Wright 3350 with somewhere between 3000 and 4000 HP...the only other version that came close to this was the G-58A (Gulfhawk 4) which had a stock R-2800, but it was almost 3000 lbs lighter than a stock Bearcat, and would do it in 98 seconds. Claiming a stocker could do it as fast as claimed just doesn't jive with the numbers....



Go Back to post 61.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...s-grumman-f8f-bearcat-33022-5.html#post911193


----------



## grampi (Aug 23, 2013)

swampyankee said:


> It happened; whether you think it was plausible or not is irrelevant.



I don't believe it...someone is fudging some numbers somewhere...physics don't lie...


----------



## grampi (Aug 23, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Go Back to post 61.
> 
> http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...s-grumman-f8f-bearcat-33022-5.html#post911193



Yeah, I saw that...still don't believe it...maybe you could explain to me how a highly modified Bearcat (Rare Bear) with well over 1000 HP more than a stocker could only do it 6 seconds quicker...the numbers just don't add up...


----------



## GregP (Aug 23, 2013)

I can explain that easily. They cannot take off at full power. The torque will overcome the rudder and aileron control. Most warbirds takeoff ar reduced power anyway. They usually can only go to full power once they reach a speed where the rudder and ailerons can counteract the torque. When I asked Stave Hinton Jr. about the Reno racer Strega, he said he usually took off at greatly reduced power and never got to full power until descending into the race track for the green flag.

Rare Bear's takeoff is generally longer than any stock Bearcat since the span and hence the ailerons are shorter than stock. The extra power comes in at high speed, not at low speeds. The engine and props historically fitted to Rare Bear generate much more torque than a standard Bearcat and require more careful handling at lower speedsm particularly on or around the runway.

The procedure is simple you can only feed power in until the nose wanders to the left with full right rudder. Then you have to back off until the nose comes back and can then add a touch more power as long as the nose stays straight. Any more power and you will be torque-turned off the runway. Once airborne, you can increase power only until the nose moves left against full right rudder or you start a slow left roll against full right aileron (or a combination of both). As speed builds, that power level rises. A stock F8F will reach full power capability a lot sooner than Rare Bear will as it makes less power to start with.


----------



## pinsog (Aug 23, 2013)

grampi said:


> Yeah, I saw that...still don't believe it...maybe you could explain to me how a highly modified Bearcat (Rare Bear) with well over 1000 HP more than a stocker could only do it 6 seconds quicker...the numbers just don't add up...



Think of a Corvette, high horse Ford Mustang or other high powered muscle car with space saver tires on the back instead of big street tires. They have to build up power slowly of they will overcome their traction and just smoke the tires. A high powered prop plane will overpower their controls so they have to build up slowly.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 23, 2013)

And please look again at the record, the plane/s were taking off into a 40mph (?) headwind. sort of a number of seconds headstart and that much more "wind" going over the control surfaces in the first few seconds of the run allowing better control.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 23, 2013)

grampi said:


> Yeah, I saw that...still don't believe it...maybe you could explain to me how a highly modified Bearcat (Rare Bear) with well over 1000 HP more than a stocker could only do it 6 seconds quicker...the numbers just don't add up...


Well believe it - the man who posted that was the son of the pilot and has numerous documents and other data backing up how it was done. Those aircraft used during the testing were basically factory fresh and their configurations were mentioned a few times on this forum.

As far as Rare Bear - AFAIK it's climb feats were accomplished at Stead Airport, about 4000' MSL. The aircraft itself is really set up for horizontal flight and from talking to some of the crew (I was a crew chief at Reno in a different class) the prop pitch settings are set more for cruise than climb, so that might explain some of it.

The feat that was accomplished by RADM Leonard has been discussed and well known for years. Again, you could believe it or not but there is no reason for anyone to fabricate this flight, especially if one looks at RADM Leonard's combat record and distinguished naval career.


Carrier Pilot and Crew Bios - Fighting Three- William N. Leonard



Shortround6 said:


> And please look again at the record, the plane/s were taking off into a 40mph (?) headwind. sort of a number of seconds headstart and that much more "wind" going over the control surfaces in the first few seconds of the run allowing better control.



BINGO!!!


----------



## grampi (Aug 23, 2013)

I could see where this would account for some it, but once Rare Bear achieved enough speed to pour the coals to it, given it's huge HP advantage over a stocker, I would think it would quickly be able to make up the difference...certainly it should be able to do this climb in a much shorter time than a stocker regardless of the headwind the stocker had...and how does a stocker make this climb one second quicker than the Gulfhawk 4 that weighed almost 3000 lbs less than a stocker (and had the same wing and prop pitch as the stocker)...that headwind isn't going to make THAT much of a difference...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 23, 2013)

Consider the fuel as well....


----------



## grampi (Aug 23, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Consider the fuel as well....



Since the Gulfhawk 4 was making its flights around the same time frame as when the stocker set this record, I'm sure they were using the same type of fuel in it...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 23, 2013)

grampi said:


> that headwind isn't going to make THAT much of a difference...


A 40 knot head wind, even on an aircraft the size and weight of the F8F is pretty significant. Look at the take off distance charts in the flight manual.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 23, 2013)

40 mph Head wind will reduce the take of distance to 50ft by to around 40% (give or take) of "normal". 

How do you take 3000lb out of a Bearcat? "Clean" a F8F-1 was carrying 2386lbs of "stuff". empty weight was 7070lbs (?) and loaded (clean) was 9386bs? Empty weight may include armor but it does NOT include guns. 

Max gross for a F8F-1 was 12,987lb but that includes drop tanks or underwing ordnance.

Not sure how much difference there was in engines. The Gulfhawk 4 used a commercial CA 15 engine that might (or might not) be fitted with water injection, same engine used in Convair 110 and 220 airliners and DC-6s. It may be the exact commercial equivalent. I don't know.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 23, 2013)

I just looked at the manual, for a Bearcat a 30kt head wind cuts the take-off distance to 50ft to about 1/3.


----------



## grampi (Aug 23, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> 40 mph Head wind will reduce the take of distance to 50ft by to around 40% (give or take) of "normal".
> 
> How do you take 3000lb out of a Bearcat? "Clean" a F8F-1 was carrying 2386lbs of "stuff". empty weight was 7070lbs (?) and loaded (clean) was 9386bs? Empty weight may include armor but it does NOT include guns.
> 
> ...



I don't know how they made the Gulfhawk 4 almost 3000 lbs lighter than a standard Bearcat, but that's what it says in the "Bearcat In Action" book I have. This plane was flown by Maj Al Williams and he said it would climb from a dead stop to 10000 ft in 98 seconds and would do 500 MPH in level flight.


----------



## GregP (Aug 23, 2013)

For a single engine, single-seat fighter in WWII, I believe empty weight does include guns, but not any ammunition. It also includes unusable fuel and undrainable oil.

Basic weight includes empty weight plus ammunition.

Normal weight includes basic weight plus oil, full internal fuel, and pilot or crew. Max gross includes normal weight plus any external stores of fuel and/or ordnance.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 23, 2013)

In America's Hundred Thousand empty weight does NOT include guns, gunsight, gun camera, oxygen equipment and the trapped oil and fuel. Sometimes, depending on Army or navy and the date it might not include armor, communications gear, emergency equipment. at some points in time one or another category would be shifted to include/exclude certain items.


----------



## GregP (Aug 23, 2013)

America's Hundred Thousand isn't a manufacturer's set of specifications, either. It's just Francis Dean's book, and a good one at that. I'll have to look at a few tomorrow at the museum to see what the actuals specs say. 

You may be right ...


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 23, 2013)

Well, as I said, not all aircraft in the book include exactly the same things in the difference between empty and basic (or empty equipped) and even the same type of aircraft (P-40 for one) a few items change where they are added in from the "C" to the "E" model so checking Manufacturer's specs is probably a good idea. The Manual for the F8F-1 -2 on this site doesn't include weights and loadings.


----------



## GregP (Aug 23, 2013)

I have a pdf of a manual covering the various F8F models and they give a weight that includes aircraft, ammunition, full internal fuel, and pilot with typical flight gear ... but no breakdown of empty and basic weight. It's also WAY too short to be a real manual.

But we DO have many manuals at the museum and I'm going in tomorrow, so I can look at a couple.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Aug 28, 2013)

GregP said:


> For a single engine, single-seat fighter in WWII, I believe empty weight does include guns, but not any ammunition. It also includes unusable fuel and undrainable oil.
> 
> Basic weight includes empty weight plus ammunition.
> 
> Normal weight includes basic weight plus oil, full internal fuel, and pilot or crew. Max gross includes normal weight plus any external stores of fuel and/or ordnance.



I don't believe Empty Weight includes guns or ANY fuel or oil.
Basic Weight includes guns but no ammunition.
As commented on elsewhere, Normal Loaded depends very much on the particular aircraft. USN types often didn't have full ammunition at Normal Loaded and something like the P-51D isn't really flyable with full internal fuel and no external stores.
Maximum Take-Off / Gross weight might involve a compromise between fuel and ordnance balance without the possibility of a full load of both.

- Ivan.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Aug 28, 2013)

From reading Corky Meyer's Flight Journal, it would appear that there was an error in designing the wing structure of the F8F so that the outter wing panels would break off with excessive G-load. (> 6G?)

The problem was that the wing panels often would not break off as a pair and a single remaining outter wing would cause the aircraft to roll.

It also appeared that this problem was never solved in a satisfactory manner and even went so far as to cause the death of one of Blue Angels at an Air Show. (One wing panel broke off at low altitude.)
I believe the Blue Angels went back to Hellcats after that.

One attempted solution was to wire the wingtips with explosives so that if one failed, the other would blow off also. This managed to kill a ground crewman when the explosives blew while the aircraft was parked.

Sounds like this is good enough reason to prefer the Corsair in combat over the Bearcat.
On aircraft such as Rare Bear, the wing tip sections aren't even installed so this issue would not come up.
I don't believe the 6G limit is reached often if at all in the Air Show circuit.

Do any of you know if this problem has been addressed in the modern flying Bearcats and how it has been addressed?

- Ivan.


----------



## GregP (Aug 28, 2013)

There are very few airplanes that can fill up with fuel and payload or passengers and still fly. I can't think of a civil lightplane that can do it.

Every flight is includes weight and balance and is basically a "plan for this flight."


----------



## Milosh (Aug 28, 2013)

Ivan that was the F8F-1. The F8F-2 did away with the 'break away' wing tips, iirc.


----------



## Harry64 (Aug 6, 2016)

krieghund said:


> I also have this chart to compare against other US Aircraft. In this chart the XF8F-1 is climbing at 5850fpm.









I must come back to this older threat.
The question is, makes it any sense to built and to introduce the F2G as a "Kamikaze" hunter, when we compare the performance data on this chart from krieghund against the F4U-4 and the F4U-5 with the 32W engine increased the overall performance.
Maybe someone of the specialists can tell me why the F2G with this enormous engine loses against the F4U in speed and the climb rate was only marginaly higher.
Can this all be traced back only to the higher gross wt. from 1300 lbs.?

Harry


----------



## tomo pauk (Aug 6, 2016)

From an amateur:
The F4U was outfitted with engines that featured 2-stage compressor each. Meaning that engine power is greater at high altitudes, when compared with engines that have 1-stage compressor. Plenty of power at high altitude means that aircraft has less dense air to struggle aginst -> more speed. Lower weight also helps.
We can compare rated altitudes of the F4U-4 and F2G where they make max speed at war emergency power setting - 20300 ft vs. 14600.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 7, 2016)

Harry64 said:


> I must come back to this older threat.
> The question is, makes it any sense to built and to introduce the F2G as a "Kamikaze" hunter, when we compare the performance data on this chart from krieghund against the F4U-4 and the F4U-5 with the 32W engine increased the overall performance.
> Maybe someone of the specialists can tell me why the F2G with this enormous engine loses against the F4U in speed and the climb rate was only marginaly higher.
> Can this all be traced back only to the higher gross wt. from 1300 lbs.?
> ...



A lot depends on timing. Some of these programs overlapped and were running in parallel. *NO *US aircraft were _designed_ as "Kamikaze Hunters." Development or service introduction may have been given higher Priority after the Kamikaze threat appeared but any aircraft that had a hope of service use in mid/late 1945 had work started on it in 1943 (if not 1942) or _very _early 1944. 
The first installation of an R-4360 in a Corsair airframe was doing ground running tests in May of 1943. The second aircraft was flying in Sept of 1943. Goodyear got a production contract for 418 F2G-1s and 10 F2G-2s in March of 1944. Production was later cut down to 5 of each and production was delayed while modifications were tested out. The cut down fuselage and modified fins/rudders for example. 

For comparison the first flight of the F4U-4XA was in April of 1944, The XF4U-4 was in Sept of 1944 and the first production F4U-4 was in Dec of 1944. This was a result of a contract placed in Jan 1944. May of 1945 sees the F4U-4 go into action and June 10th is the first victory. 
During this time there was also the F4U-3 with a turbo charged engine which came to nothing (Navy had a different company than General Electric supplying the turbo charger).

The F4U-5 was a fantastic machine but since the first one didn't fly until April 4th 1946 it had nothing to do with any Kamikaze hunting or any decisions about which aircraft to use for such a role. Aside from being an 18 cylinder two row radial of 2800 cubic inches the engine in the -5 didn't have a lot in common with the engine in the -4. Internally it had the most in common with the engine used in the F8F-*2*, which was considerably different than the engine used in the F8F-1. 
First Flight of the F8F-1 was in August of 1944 as a result of an order for two prototypes placed on 27 November 1943. Production order was placed on 6 October 1944 based on the configuration of the 2nd prototype. 1st production plane was delivered 21 May 1945.

It was the F8F-1 that caused the cancellation of the F2G even though the vast majority of the F2Gs were intended to be shore based aircraft (no tail hooks or power folding wings).

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Harry64 (Aug 8, 2016)

Shortround and Tomo

many thanks for clarification. 

Please, one another help:
Why was the F2G with his much more powerful R-4360 engine, in performance data sometimes behind the F4U. See my part of the question in my previous post.
If you can explain this for a layman like me, it would be great.

Harry


----------



## tomo pauk (Aug 8, 2016)

Please re-read my post. At high altitudes, say 20000 ft and above, the F4U-4 have had more power. The max speed, as a rule, is achieved at high altitudes. So the F4U-4 will be faster. 
At low altitudes, where the F2G has inded more power, it will be faster.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 8, 2016)

Tomo Explained it in the Post previous to mine.
"We can compare rated altitudes of the F4U-4 and F2G where they make max speed at war emergency power setting - 20300 ft vs. 14600."

While the F2G could make 3000hp at sea level ( and do 397-399mph) it's power had fallen to 2400hp at 13,500ft not including RAM. and continued to drop in power even faster after that. The engine in the F4U-4 could provide Military power (not War emergency power) of 2100hp at 1000ft, 1900hp at 14,000ft and 1800hp at 23,000ft. The F4U-4 actually had more power at higher altitudes. It may have had a bit less drag too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Harry64 (Aug 8, 2016)

Shortround, Tomo,

that it is, now I unterstand it, many thanks.

Harry


----------

