# Thoughts about the F7F Tigercat.



## Rufus123 (Sep 1, 2013)

It seems to me that when the Tigercat would finally get carrier qualified on what I assume would be the Midway Class carriers that the F designation would be obsolete for this plane. 

With the Bearcat acting as a fast climbing interceptor, Corsair acting as the fighter, the Tigercat seems to me to be a torpedo/attack plane that can fight if it has to rather than a pure fighter. Any thoughts on this?


----------



## Conslaw (Sep 1, 2013)

I think the Navy would have taken cues from the British use of the Mosquito, as a true multi-role aircraft. Of course, there are differences. The Mosquito had two crew members, and the Tigercat only had one. The Tigercat was faster, but the Mossie had a longer range. I think the main reason the F7F wasn't put into combat before the war was over was that the Navy really didn't NEED it. Any role the F7F could either be handled by 1 or 2 F6F or F4Us or a TBM.


----------



## N4521U (Sep 1, 2013)

It sure is pritty tho.


----------



## davebender (Sep 1, 2013)

F7F would have been a fine aircraft if it had entered service three years earlier (i.e. mid 1942). Historically it entered service just in time to be made obsolete by jets.


----------



## GregP (Sep 1, 2013)

The F7F was pure fighter. All other uses were afterthoughts. The performance was amazing and it still flies a great aerobatic sequence at airshows. The Two seaters were night fighters and all other uses were well after being designed as a fighter. Many people feel it was easily one of the best of the pistons to fly. Especially former fighter pilots who flew it.

There never was an F7F fitted as a torpedo carrier unless it just isn't well documented. There were 34 F7F-1’s as single-seat fighters, 1 F7F-1N fitted with radar as a prototype night fighter, 1 XF7F-2N prototype, 65 F7FN 2-seat night fighters, a small number of F7F-2D drone conversions, 189 single-seat F7F-3 fighter-bombers, 60 F7F-2N 2-seat night fighters, a small number of F7F-3E electronics warfare conversions, a small number of F7F-3P photo recon conversions, and 13 F7F-4N night fighters. Total 364. None were torpedo planes.

We are in the process of restoring one now at Fighter Rebuilders. It is looking very good.


----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (Sep 1, 2013)

I am envious GregP. You need to post some photos of that bird it you are able.


----------



## GregP (Sep 1, 2013)

I can take some pics Tuesday ... I'm off tomorrow and prefer not to go in. My volunteer day is Saturday, so today and tomorrow are the only days I'll NOT be there this week. Tomorrow I'm going to Joe Yancey's Allison shop for a cookout on Labor Day.


----------



## pattle (Sep 1, 2013)

The Tigercat (not that I know a lot about it) has always sounded to me like an excellent aircraft that wasn't needed, which is a slightly unusual situation as there have been plenty of aircraft that were needed for things but were useless.


----------



## GregP (Sep 1, 2013)

It was a very good fighter with four 20 mm cannons on the centerline.

Flies VERY on two fans well but is a bit directionally challenged on one engine unless you are ... delicate with the good-engine throttle.

All of the F7F's still flying beat book numbers for speed and climb. Many still have all the military equipment in them, including inert rounds and gun muzzles and gun ports, so they are essentially in stock aerodynamic form.


----------



## Rufus123 (Sep 2, 2013)

GregP said:


> The F7F was pure fighter. All other uses were afterthoughts. The performance was amazing and it still flies a great aerobatic sequence at airshows. The Two seaters were night fighters and all other uses were well after being designed as a fighter. Many people feel it was easily one of the best of the pistons to fly. Especially former fighter pilots who flew it.
> 
> There never was an F7F fitted as a torpedo carrier unless it just isn't well documented. There were 34 F7F-1’s as single-seat fighters, 1 F7F-1N fitted with radar as a prototype night fighter, 1 XF7F-2N prototype, 65 F7FN 2-seat night fighters, a small number of F7F-2D drone conversions, 189 single-seat F7F-3 fighter-bombers, 60 F7F-2N 2-seat night fighters, a small number of F7F-3E electronics warfare conversions, a small number of F7F-3P photo recon conversions, and 13 F7F-4N night fighters. Total 364. None were torpedo planes.
> 
> We are in the process of restoring one now at Fighter Rebuilders. It is looking very good.



Is this info incorrect? I do know everything in print is not always fact.

F7F Tigercat fighter - bomber (1944) - Carrier Planes - Naval Aviation - United States Of America - Naval aviation and armaments - Navypedia

It shows only one version that was not able to mount a torpedo. It shows 364 that were built were torpedo capable. 

They were building them as the war came to an end and were shipping them to the Pacific then the war ended so they intended to use them at least as a land based plane.

Even though designed as a fighter here is what it looks like to me it brings to the table. 

TBM- If the information about them is correct here is something that is more survivable than the TBM and is a force multiplier as it can do jobs the TBM cannot. It can out strafe the TBM, can be a fighter, was well as do what a TBM can do.

Bearcat- The Bearcat would be a better interceptor I would think. The Bearcat would take a back seat as an attack aircraft. The Tigercat can out strafe the Bearcat, can out bomb the Bearcat, though it is not as good of an interceptor it can help in that role.

Corsair- I think can outfight the Tigercat but the Tigercat could sure supplement it and with 4 20mm and 4 .50's has the firepower to deliver. The Corsair can also bomb. If the Tigercat as published can deliver a torpedo and can out strafe the Corsair.

I think the Tigercat beats the Hellcat at all roles except for deck space.

Since they were starting to deploy them how were they intended to be used?


----------



## Rufus123 (Sep 2, 2013)

F7F-1 fighter-bomber 4/1944 - 1945 2 Pratt Whitney R-2800-22W engines (2 х 2100 h. p.), 1 seat, 4 20-mm guns, 4 12.7-mm MG, 908 kg of combat load (1 454-kg bombs or 1 298-mm rocket or 1 Mk13 torpedo)

F7F-2N night fighter-bomber 10/1944 - 3/1945 2 seats (or additional fuel tank instead of radar operator seat at day), 4 20-mm guns, 4 12.7-mm MG (at day), 1818 kg of combat load (2 227-kg bombs or 8 127-mm rockets or 2 298-mm rockets on wings, 1 454-kg bomb or 1 298-mm rocket or 1 Mk13 torpedo on hull), APS-6 radar

F7F-3 fighter-bomber 3/1945 - 6/1946 1 seat, 2 R-2800-34W engines (2 х 2100 h. p.), 4 20-mm guns, 4 12.7-mm MG, 1818 kg of combat load (2 454-kg bombs or 8 127-mm rockets or 2 298-mm rockets on wings, 1 907-kg bomb or 1 298-mm rocket or 1 Mk13 torpedo on hull), without radar

F7F-3N night fighter-bomber 5/1945 - 6/1946 2 seats, 4 20-mm guns, 1818 kg of combat load (2 454-kg bombs or 8 127-mm rockets or 2 298-mm rockets on wings, 1 907-kg bomb or 1 298-mm rocket or 1 Mk13 torpedo on hull), SCR-720 radar

F7F-3P recon 3/1945 - 8/1945 61 1956 1 seat, 4 20-mm guns, 4 12.7-mm MG, 908 kg of combat load (2 454-kg bombs or 8 127-mm rockets or 2 298-mm rockets on wings), photo camera, without radar

F7F-4N night fighter-bomber 9/1946 - 11/1946 12 1954 2 seat, 4 20-mm guns, 1818 kg of combat load (2 454-kg bombs or 8 127-mm rockets or 2 298-mm rockets on wings, 1 907-kg bomb or 1 298-mm rocket or 1 Mk13 torpedo on hull), APS-19 radar

I could be missing something but from the looks of this it looks like to me it would have made an amazing attack plane and scary torpedo plane. After it drops its bombs or torpedo it could continue on as a fighter. It would have been harder to intercept on it's way home and could take down some planes as well.


----------



## GregP (Sep 2, 2013)

The F7F Tigercat COULD carry one torpedo, but the US Navy didn't operate them as torpedo bombers. They were operated as fighters, fighter/bombers, interdiction, and night fighters. In Korea, they performed fighter and night interdiction missions in their only combat use ... no torpedo attacks.

The F7F-3 was produced in day fighter, nigh fighter, and photo-recon versions. All retained the ability to carry a torpedo but rarely if ever did.

Since they were not operated as torpedo bombers, they are fighters that had the capability ... but it wasn't ever used. In my book, that removes them from the torpedo plane category altogether. To be classified as torpedo plane, the type should at LEAST have been operated as such by somebody. You can use an F-22 Raptor as a ground attack plane, but nobody does, so it isn't one. I think we all know that planes can be adapted for special uses in times of need. The Mosquito and Ju-88 come immediately to mind.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Sep 2, 2013)

From what I have read about the two seat version used during night attacks in Korea, the number of back seaters that got out of stricken Tiger cats was nil or pretty near that. Ouch!


----------



## Rufus123 (Sep 2, 2013)

GregP said:


> The F7F Tigercat COULD carry one torpedo, but the US Navy didn't operate them as torpedo bombers. They were operated as fighters, fighter/bombers, interdiction, and night fighters. In Korea, they performed fighter and night interdiction missions in their only combat use ... no torpedo attacks.
> 
> The F7F-3 was produced in day fighter, nigh fighter, and photo-recon versions. All retained the ability to carry a torpedo but rarely if ever did.
> 
> Since they were not operated as torpedo bombers, they are fighters that had the capability ... but it wasn't ever used. In my book, that removes them from the torpedo plane category altogether. To be classified as torpedo plane, the type should at LEAST have been operated as such by somebody. You can use an F-22 Raptor as a ground attack plane, but nobody does, so it isn't one. I think we all know that planes can be adapted for special uses in times of need. The Mosquito and Ju-88 come immediately to mind.



During the Korean war there was not many ships to go after. I was thinking in terms of how they would have been used in WW2, they just didn't it in time and saw no action.

I understand they were being shipped to the Pacific when the war ended. Kind of like the Bearcat was stating to be shipped at wars end.


----------



## Rufus123 (Sep 2, 2013)

GregP said:


> The F7F Tigercat COULD carry one torpedo, but the US Navy didn't operate them as torpedo bombers. They were operated as fighters, fighter/bombers, interdiction, and night fighters. In Korea, they performed fighter and night interdiction missions in their only combat use ... no torpedo attacks.
> 
> The F7F-3 was produced in day fighter, nigh fighter, and photo-recon versions. All retained the ability to carry a torpedo but rarely if ever did.
> 
> Since they were not operated as torpedo bombers, they are fighters that had the capability ... but it wasn't ever used. In my book, that removes them from the torpedo plane category altogether. To be classified as torpedo plane, the type should at LEAST have been operated as such by somebody. You can use an F-22 Raptor as a ground attack plane, but nobody does, so it isn't one. I think we all know that planes can be adapted for special uses in times of need. The Mosquito and Ju-88 come immediately to mind.



During the Korean war there was not many ships to go after. I was thinking in terms of how they would have been used in WW2, they just didn't it in time and saw no action.

I understand they were being shipped to the Pacific when the war ended. Kind of like the Bearcat was stating to be shipped at wars end.

Most of my mothers family was lost when the North took Seoul.


----------



## GregP (Sep 2, 2013)

Sorry to hear about your loss. 

War knows no mercy. Many innocents are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 3, 2013)

GregP said:


> All of the F7F's still flying beat book numbers for speed and climb. Many still have all the military equipment in them, including inert rounds and gun muzzles and gun ports, so they are essentially in stock aerodynamic form.



This is perhaps a silly question, but who is flying a modern F7F at war emergency power at 25,000 feet to test maximum level speed?

- Ivan.


----------



## Conslaw (Sep 3, 2013)

Ivan1GFP said:


> This is perhaps a silly question, but who is flying a modern F7F at war emergency power at 25,000 feet to test maximum level speed?
> 
> - Ivan.



People that have $2 million to buy and restore an F7F do a lot of things that most of the rest of us would not do.


----------



## GregP (Sep 3, 2013)

Well, Mr. Rod Lewis owns TWO Tigercats and races them at Reno ... and goes pretty darned fast. Ask the people he beats! He KNOWS what the boopk says for the Remo altitude and KNOWS what his do there. 

One of them flew an outstanding aerobatic demo at a recent Planes of Fame airshow with Steve Hinton at the controls.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFFP_ku_E8c_

Here are some shots of the one we have in restoration. Here is a temporary assembly of the tail section to check fit.







Here is looking into the port wheel well.






Here is a QEC package.






Here is looking down into the nose section. The fuselage front half is on a rotisserie.







More to come.


----------



## Rufus123 (Sep 4, 2013)

GregP said:


> Sorry to hear about your loss.
> 
> War knows no mercy. Many innocents are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.



It was not as much of a loss for me as I was not born yet. You could say I was a indirect product of the Korean war. 

My mothers family at the time lived on Mt Namsan, overlooking Seoul. My mother was a linguist at the time for the Seoul government and moved with several government officials that though someone who spoke seven languages was a asset. The rest of the family was in Seoul and her brothers, and cousins chose to fight in defense of the city and most of the family didn't survive. I would not be born for many years later. My mother during the occupation worked at a translator for the government and somehow I came about because of this. I am in the states now and don't have any known living relatives. 

I do wonder if stories kids are told are partly wishful thinking. It is confirmed that almost all of the family was killed when Seoul was lost but how could my mother know they were defending the city and not executed while she was being moved around from safe location to safe location by the government.

South Korea was lost and it was Americans that got it back, others helped in small ways but this was an American operation. People sometimes say MacArthur saved Korea, I don't know if things would have been different if another person was in charge or not. Things would have failed with out the Americans. Old Korean's know what happened, the younger generation forgets how close Korea came to being lost.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 4, 2013)

GregP said:


> Well, Mr. Rod Lewis owns TWO Tigercats and races them at Reno ... and goes pretty darned fast. Ask the people he beats! He KNOWS what the boopk says for the Remo altitude and KNOWS what his do there.



Thanks for posting photographs. 

The point I was trying to make was that to prove you can beat the book specifications with military equipment installed, you would be flying with self sealing fuel tanks, ballasted for armament, ammunition and equipment weight differences such as the old heavy radios.
To make a speed run at the atitudes required for maximum level speed, you would need to get up to 25-30,000 feet which means you would be on oxygen.
To get the maximum engine output, you would be running at War Emergency Power which would require Water Injection.

I just can't imagine someone willing to do this to a 60-70 year old airframe with very expensive engines.

At low altitude, even the Flugwerk FW 190As with their Shvetsov radials will go about the same speed as the originals or perhaps even better but I don't think they will beat the originals in maximum level speed at 20,000 feet.

- Ivan.


----------



## GregP (Sep 4, 2013)

Nobody races ballasted for original armament. To do so would be ludicrous in the extreme.

But not all Reno racers are lighter than the original.

Take Race 232. It started life a a Hawker Sea Fury FB 11 and was turned into a racer. It has a formula 1 canopy and the wing fold mechanism is gone except for the locking pins, so wing fold is a manual operation now. The oil cooler is gone and leading edge is fared over to match the rest of the leading edge.

But, it also has an oii boil-off system and 120 gallons of waster methanol to haul around, and the R-3350 has a bigger, heavier supoercharger than stock. So it's very probably about a wash, weight wise, with a stock Sea Fury FB 11 without guns ... but it is a whole LOT faster.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 5, 2013)

A modern Unlimited class racer can't really compare to an aircraft in military configuration.
When you start upgrading engines, superchargers, etc, what you get in performance is no real indication of what the original would do. I believe that is what we were discussing: what kind of performance was the original Tigercat capable of.

Besides, even if the aircraft were capable of 400 mph at sea level, it should go quite a lot faster at altitude. I would be curious what these unlimited class racers were able to do at altitude, but I doublt anyone would ever bother testing at altitude.

There are quite a few aircraft that are probably a bit faster in military form than their "book numbers" claim. Most Japanese fighters, the P-38J/L, the FW 190A/F/G come to mind.

- Ivan.


----------



## GregP (Sep 5, 2013)

Hi Ivan,

Rod Lewis’ F7F’s are bone stock with stock overhauled R-2800’s. His even have the gun ports and disabled guns installed. I only know of one warbird with functional guns (and one more on the way).

Most of the planes racing in the Bronze class are stock warbirds, some with and some without guns. Most without have the gun ports fared over. Otherwise they are stock with some modern avionics installed.

So there are quite a few STOCK warbirds running at Reno. The dedicated racers are all mostly in the Gold class and were highly modified many years ago with only incremental cleanups in recent years. The accent is on the race engines.

Ed Maloney’s P-51 Spam Can makes stock book numbers for a P-51D and stock book power settings. It is not especially finished or especially cleaned up and runs stock engine and fittings … and makes stock numbers. Steve Hinton’s bird is a little faster but is essentially stock and makes only a bit better than stock, not much.

Funny as it may seem, warbirds licensed in other than the experimental exhibition class are mostly VERY stock or they wouldn’t get the certification. The experimental exhibition birds are the heavily modified ones and aren’t seen much except around Reno race time … which is NOW.

Steve just left for Reno this afternoon about an hour and a half ago in the CT-133 pace plane. Go Stevo Hinton Jr. in Voodoo! We’re hoping for another first place, of course.


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 6, 2013)

Regardless of whether the Tigercat could physically carry a torpedo, it wasn't really a torpedo bomber unless the pilots received training and practiced in that role. Greg would probably know if that was done at all.


----------



## grampi (Sep 6, 2013)

GregP said:


> Go Stevo Hinton Jr. in Voodoo! We’re hoping for another first place, of course.



It's doubtful he'll win in Voodoo...it simply isn't as fast as Strega...then again, none of the other racers are, and the only one that was (Dago Red) is no longer racing...


----------



## GregP (Sep 6, 2013)

Actually Voodoo is almost exactly as fast as Strega. Lap times were virtually identical for best lap, but Stevo flies a level consisten turn and most of the former Voodoo pilots tended to baloon up in the turns and lost speed which they them partly made up on the short straights.

If Voodoo doesn't break it SHOULD be a very good race.

Of course, Rare Bear has enogh cooling air now and should be able to run at high power levels for the whole race for the first time in 2 - 3 years. I'm really looking forward to it, but this may be the swan song for the races.

The Reno Air Racing Association (RARA) has taken a solid event and gotten so greedy that they have driven almost everyone off. Who wants to go racing when it always costs you MUCH more than you bring home even if you win?

The guys who REALLY want to race will find a way to get together and do it quietly in some deserted area, but perhpas not much more at Reno. It hasn't been about racing ever since RARA took over the races ... just about the money RARA can bring in.

Still 3 of the fastest piston-powered propeller-driven fighters that ever flew are going to do it at LEAST one last time. If they falter at all Race 232 is there and capable, and Hoot Gibson knows how to get it done if allowed to do so.

The F7F could, in fact, carry a torpedo, but I am not aware that they ever practiced it or in fact were tasked with a torpedo attack. It was a fighter with auxiliary ground attack capability and was flown as a fighter, night fighter, photo recon, and interdiction aircraft during operations as far as I know at this time.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 6, 2013)

GregP said:


> Nobody races ballasted for original armament. To do so would be ludicrous in the extreme.



How do they get the correct C/G?


----------



## GregP (Sep 6, 2013)

There is a range of CG in % MAC.

When they remove the guns in the Tgercat, the center of mass of the guns is VERY close to the CG, so it isn't much of an issue. They usually move the batteries forward and add a bit of lead. The receivers of the guns (most of the mass) are close to the CG, so the lead is less than it otherwise would be.

Lead plates are added in all F-86's when the guns are missing. They add the minumum necessary to bring the CG into the proper place depending on the particular dash number. Most warbirds with guns in the nose have to have lead added.

For our Bell YP-59A with guns well forward, we'll have to add about 800 pounds or slightly more to the nose to compensate for the lack of guns, maybe as much as 1,000 pounds depending on the final airframe balance when we are done (we are also adding auxiliary fuel tanks the original never had).


----------



## Milosh (Sep 8, 2013)

The center of mass is only for the wing guns. There is still the 300+lb of .50" in the nose to compensate for.


----------



## GregP (Sep 8, 2013)

The Tigercat's gun mass is located about where the engines are, not in the far front of the nose. They do not cause too much of an issue, Milosh. Look at the pic below.







The MG receivers are located right about where the red propeller line is just in front of the pilot's feet. Moving batteries does a lot and adding a little weight farther foward does the rest. Not too difficult really.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 8, 2013)

The 20mm guns and ammo boxes are mounted pretty far back in the wing, just forward of the flaps. Distance from the CG may not be quite as great as as the .50 cal guns but being behind the CG helps balance weight taken out in front of the CG.


----------



## GregP (Sep 8, 2013)

The wing cannons and fuselage MG just about cancel each other out, as you imply. This was one HARD-hitting bird with four 20 mm cannon and four 50-cal MG, none of which require synchronization.

The presence or absence of lead depends on the fitout of a restored Tigercat. If you are careful when you bring a Tigercat back to life, you can come away without any lead balance. It depends on who is doing the restoration. I don't believe the one Steve Hinton flew at our airshow had any lead in it at all. But I also think there may be one or two out there with some lead balance weight. If I recall correctly, there are about 8 of these things flying with two more in restioration now. We are doing one and so is WestPAC in Colorado.

Either way, the plane is a bit lighter than a stock mission-ready Tigercat. If I had one, I'd take out the armor plating, too. I can only dream about having that decision.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 8, 2013)

GregP
Would you care to speculate what would happen if an F7F Tigercat met an F4U-4 Corsair headon at 20,000 feet, equal pilots, and began a dogfight? I know the F7F is fast and climbs well, but how does it roll and turn compaired to a big single engine like a Corsair?


----------



## GregP (Sep 8, 2013)

I would have a hard time deciding. If they met head on, the Corsair might be down right away, what with the Tigercat's cannons and MG all on centerline. But that is speculative. If there weren't a quick victory, the climb is about a wash, the speed is quite close, depending on models, the Corsair would have a better roll rate, but the Tigercat certainly has armament all over the F4U.

I'd lean toward the Tigercat if the Tigercat pilot was a good shot and lean toward the Corsair in an extended dogfight. I've seen both doing some quick maneuvers, and they both might have similar turn capabilities, but it would be tough to imagine the Tigercat rolling with the Corsair.

Sorry, I don't have a definitive answer, but would lean toward the Corsair based on roll and proven dogfight ability. However, if I were in combat it would be tough to overlook the twin engines and heavy armament of the F7F. Unfortunately we don't have a lot of F7F combat experience to help us due to the ascendency of jets and the abandonment of pistons right about when the F7F was coming into service.

What do YOU think?


----------



## pinsog (Sep 8, 2013)

GregP said:


> I would have a hard time deciding. If they met head on, the Corsair might be down right away, what with the Tigercat's cannons and MG all on centerline. But that is speculative. If there weren't a quick victory, the climb is about a wash, the speed is quite close, depending on models, the Corsair would have a better roll rate, but the Tigercat certainly has armament all over the F4U.
> 
> I'd lean toward the Tigercat if the Tigercat pilot was a good shot and lean toward the Corsair in an extended dogfight. I've seen both doing some quick maneuvers, and they both might have similar turn capabilities, but it would be tough to imagine the Tigercat rolling with the Corsair.
> 
> ...



I should have made it more clear "Dogfight starts as they pass each other". I agree 100% that I wouldn't want to be in the Corsair doing a headon pass against a Tigercat. (St. Peter?! Where did this big pearly gate come from???) I also agree with you on speed being equal, weapons go to F7F, and roll to Corsair. I would have thought the Corsair would be able to easily outturn the F7F and I would have thought the F7F would have a much better climb rate.

What do I think? I don't know, but I would LOVE to watch it happen!!!! That F7F is a beautifull airplane.

GregP, next time you see him, why don't you ask your friend that owns/flies the F7F and the others what he thinks would happen in a dogfight between the F7F and F4U? Better yet, ask him which one HE would choose if he had to be in that fight.


----------



## GregP (Sep 8, 2013)

I'll ask Steve Hinton after the Reno Races are over.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 8, 2013)

GregP said:


> I'll ask Steve Hinton after the Reno Races are over.



I can't wait to here his reply and hopefully, a detailed response on why he would choose what he would choose. When are the races over?


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 8, 2013)

It may depend on when they spot each other. Corsair may try to go high. 20,000ft is near the dividing line. The higher they go they more advantage the F4U-4 has. The lower they go the more advantage the F7F has.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 8, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> It may depend on when they spot each other. Corsair may try to go high. 20,000ft is near the dividing line. The higher they go they more advantage the F4U-4 has. The lower they go the more advantage the F7F has.



They see each other from way out, no head on firing, they pass wingtip to wingtip and the fight starts. 

Please explain more details from your quote above...


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 8, 2013)

The F4U-4 has a two stage supercharger. It's engine has 1800hp at 23,000ft (no ram) and can still pull 1800 hp at 25,500ft in level flight with ram. The F7Fs used single stage superchargers. The -1 and -2 F7Fs used R-2800-22 engines that hada Military power of 1600hp at 16,000ft (no ram). the -3 version had the R-2800-34 engine with 1700hp at 16,000ft. (no ram) 

These are _military_ ratings and do not include water injection which ALL these engines were fitted with. 

The engines in the F7F-12 may be down to around 1320hp at 23,000ft. Granted there are two but there does come an altitude at which the F4U-4 does out climb the the F7F by several hundred fpm. While trying to climb straight away doesn't work well having a better rate of climb means the ability to better maintain height in a turn. Either pull a bit tighter turn while maintaining height or if both planes are pulling tight turns and both are loosing altitude the one with the "better climb rate" will loose less altitude per second it is in the turn. If the F4U-4 goes down below 20,000ft he is giving up this advantage.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 8, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> The F4U-4 has a two stage supercharger. It's engine has 1800hp at 23,000ft (no ram) and can still pull 1800 hp at 25,500ft in level flight with ram. The F7Fs used single stage superchargers. The -1 and -2 F7Fs used R-2800-22 engines that hada Military power of 1600hp at 16,000ft (no ram). the -3 version had the R-2800-34 engine with 1700hp at 16,000ft. (no ram)
> 
> These are _military_ ratings and do not include water injection which ALL these engines were fitted with.
> 
> The engines in the F7F-12 may be down to around 1320hp at 23,000ft. Granted there are two but there does come an altitude at which the F4U-4 does out climb the the F7F by several hundred fpm. While trying to climb straight away doesn't work well having a better rate of climb means the ability to better maintain height in a turn. Either pull a bit tighter turn while maintaining height or if both planes are pulling tight turns and both are loosing altitude the one with the "better climb rate" will loose less altitude per second it is in the turn. If the F4U-4 goes down below 20,000ft he is giving up this advantage.



I didn't realize the supercharger difference between the 2 aircraft. Thank you for the info. 

Would you like to guess the outcome at low level? Say 10,000 feet or below?


----------



## GregP (Sep 8, 2013)

Hi pinsog,

If I were doing a press interview, Steve would no doubt give a long explanation. However, I work for him and his answers are usually short and to the point since he is so busy. I suppose we'll see. 

He'll be at Reno until after next weekend and then back honme, hopefully with another family Nation al Championship ... again, we'll see. There are some FAST planes there again this year. Nobody is cutting up entire warbirds into racers anymore, so the contenders are well known.

I doubt if Shockwave will ever fly. It is a new-build fuselage that would have T-2 Buckeye wings and an R-3350, but it may never be completed. If this is the swan song for the races, it for sure will never be finished. I suppose only time will tell.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 8, 2013)

GregP said:


> Hi pinsog,
> 
> If I were doing a press interview, Steve would no doubt give a long explanation. However, I work for him and his answers are usually short and to the point since he is so busy. I suppose we'll see.
> 
> ...



Thank you GregP. Good luck at the races and good luck with my question!


----------



## GregP (Sep 8, 2013)

Thanks!


----------



## Rufus123 (Sep 8, 2013)

How far apart are the right and left outboard cannon from each other? It does not seem that far at all. It looks like less than a persons outstretched arms.


----------



## GregP (Sep 9, 2013)

Haven't measured it but the fuselage is VERY narrow and the cannons fire inside the prop tips.


----------



## cimmex (Sep 9, 2013)

@gregP, where is your so loved bubble canopy at the Tigercat? sorry could not resist!
cimmex


----------



## Milosh (Sep 9, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> The 20mm guns and ammo boxes are mounted pretty far back in the wing, just forward of the flaps. Distance from the CG may not be quite as great as as the .50 cal guns but being behind the CG helps balance weight taken out in front of the CG.



Without a load plan that is only guessing.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 9, 2013)

part guess and part looking at a diagram in the pilots manual even if it wasn't the load plan one. 

One diagram is in the pilots notes here:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/at...7f-piots-notes-upload-pilots-handbook-f7f.pdf

The Barrel alone is 171 cm long, where do you figure the ammo boxes are?


----------



## GregP (Sep 9, 2013)

Checked out the Tigercat.

The fuselage is about 4 feet wide. The inside 20 mm cannon is about 3 inches from the edge of the wing and the second 20 mm on the same side is about another 3 - 3.5 inches to the side of the first one.

So, the total offset from centerline for the 20 mm cannons is about 2.25 - 2.4 feet for the inside cannon and anotehr 3 - 3.5 inches for the ourtside cannon. Pretty darned close to CL! Depending on how far offset the win attach point are it might be that number or up to another 2 - 3 inches. If one that is complete visits anytime soon, maybe I can get a measurement.

OK, took off the cover and measured just behind the pilot seat bulkhead. The fuselage is 41 inches wide plus two thicknesses of .050 Aluminum, so it's even less than 4 feet wide ... probably about as wide as a Super Cub!


----------



## Rufus123 (Sep 11, 2013)

I am guessing they would be running these guns parallel as far as windage goes? 8 guns in what is about a 5 foot path does not sound like it needs to converge to me. The way it is sounds like it increases the chances of hitting something vital. Perfect aim and 4 .50s are hitting with 20mm hitting near the aiming point. I couple of feet off and you have a pair of 20mm hitting where you you intended to aim. Sounds like there will be cases when all guns are hitting a target.


----------



## GregP (Sep 28, 2013)

Talked with Steve Hinton about the Tigercat versus the Corsair.

He said the Tigercat accelerated faster, was faster overall, climbed much better, and hit a lot harder, but wasn’t quite as agile. Later variants of the Corsair may have been a bit faster at the top end. But the Tigercat had accelerated away so fast that any encounter would be over before the Corsair would catch up. And despite any published numbers, no Corsair would climb with a Tigercat.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 29, 2013)

GregP said:


> Talked with Steve Hinton about the Tigercat versus the Corsair.
> 
> He said the Tigercat accelerated faster, was faster overall, climbed much better, and hit a lot harder, but wasn’t quite as agile. Later variants of the Corsair may have been a bit faster at the top end. But the Tigercat had accelerated away so fast that any encounter would be over before the Corsair would catch up. And despite any published numbers, no Corsair would climb with a Tigercat.



How awesome to hear that from a pilot that has flown both. Thank you


----------



## GregP (Sep 29, 2013)

You're welcome. Steve has absolutely no axe to grind and likes most aircraft, though he is not fond of flying the IL-2.

It's pretty neat having some guys around who KNOW what they're talking about. I had dinner with Hoot Gibson and we taloked Navay flying. He flew F-4's and the F-14A. Never got to fly the F-14D model, but knows about it. He reminded me that the F-14A covered the last withdrawl from Viet Nam ... and they goit a combat mission award for it even though no opposition was seen.

Sorry, nothing to do with the Tigercat ...


----------



## glennasher (Sep 29, 2013)

No matter what, I think the Tigercat was the prettiest twin ANYTHING of the war, even as late as it was. It's just a beautiful bird, and always has been.


----------



## GregP (Sep 29, 2013)

YEah it is. Fighter Rebuilders is restoring one right now for a private owner, and it will be beautiful. I don;t know what color scheme the owner will paint it, but the landing gear are dark Navy blue, so maybe the plane will be, too.


----------

