bearcat envy

[rogerwilko]

Be great to find out this guys name. He looks full of envy!

 

[GregP]

Either that or he is tasked with changing the spark plugs ... and that is a look of dismay ...

 

[Shortround6]

" I got to pull the prop though how many revolutions before hitting the starter button?"

 

[rogerwilko]

Hilarious! Yes I suppose it could be both!

 

[pinsog]

It's like a go cart with a big block engine.

 

[GregP]

Surely one of the A-ticket rides of all times, according to Steve Hinton. I believe him.

At least ONE has air conditioning! Rod Lewis owns it and it is painted in Thai markings.

Wish I were priveliged to fly one ... but I DO get to at least get up close to several once in awhile, and that's at least better than pictures ... unless it is 100°F outrside, that is.

 

[Boa]

I guess he the pilot of the B-24 Liberator that stands in background...

 

[tyrodtom]

If he is that Liberator pilot, he might be wondering what a aircraft with about half the hp of his 4 engined B-24 would be like.

 

[bobbysocks]

from that perspective the prop looks darn close to the ground to me. a little lift of the tail and ping goes the prop...

 

[rogerwilko]

Yes, it is close isn't it. I'll have to youtube a Bearcat takeoff now.

 

[davparlr]

Couple of items. One, the hump to the cockpit makes it look like the fuselage is bent, and, two, the propeller diameter is about half the length. All in all an impressive airplane that, caught between too late for WWII and hemmed in by the jet engine, had nowhere to go.

 

[GregP]

Nowhere to go, but it gets there FAST if required.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Hello GregP,

How do your acquaintances handle the break-away wing tips on the Bearcat?
I know the racers simply have them removed, but what about the ones that still fly with original dimensioned wings?
Do they reinforce them or keep the explosive bolts in place?

Thanks.
- Ivan.

 

[rogerwilko]

Wiki explains that the explosive bolts system was dropped too.

 

[nuuumannn]

Sweet photo. If he is the Liberator pilot or crew, he could be thinking "I'm in the wrong job". I would be!

 

[davparlr]

Nowhere to go, but it gets there FAST if required.

Actually, I was a bit wrong. They did migrate to the French and fought in Vietnam, but in the air-to-ground role, not the interceptor/fighter role they were designed for.

 

[awack]

Of all the aircraft that i call 4th generation (109/spitfire 1st, fw 190a/typhoon 2nd, p 51D/fw190d9 3rd, ta 152h1/tempest II/Bearcat etc 4th) the 152 h1 seems pretty awesome as far as specs go, but the Bearcat is the one i would want to fly above all others, just seems like it would be a joy to fly...2nd would be the hornet. After the war, mock combat was carried out between a P 80a and a Bearcat, the P 80a won easily by using the best strength of early jets(262, F9F, etc) rate of climb at combat speed or max speed, it was able to get above the Bearcat easily by climbing at speed as well as zoom climb...the climb ability of jets at high speed was breath taking for the time, jets produce allot of power at high speed, and the P80a wasn't even the best jet of its time(average P80a unpainted in 1946, 525 mph at 5000 ft...the me 262 unpainted, that was test flown against the P80a... 568 mph at 20200ft ) just goes to show that the day of the piston engine fighter/interceptor was over.

 

[wuzak]

Early jets weren't fantastic climbers.

To 30,000 ft
Meteor III - 11.5 minutes
P-80A - 9.8 minutes
Spitfire XIV - 8.35 minutes

To 10,000ft
P-80A - 2.4 minutes
Spitfire XIV - 2.3 minutes (on only +18psi boost)
F8F - should be faster than Spit XIV. F8F-1 with 1 drop tank to 10,000ft in 3.3 minutes, record was 94s in 1946.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Wiki explains that the explosive bolts system was dropped too.

Yes, I know the explosive bolts system was dropped after a fellow got killed when walking near a parked aircraft. It exploded for no apparent reason.

The problem though is that the outter wing structure was not intended to take a load past 6G while the rest of the wing was stressed to 9G which is why the wing tips were detachable in the first place. I was wondering if the modern solution was to beef up the structure or just to stay way below 6G. Seems like a fatal (literally) design flaw in an otherwise superb fighter.

A late model FW 190 with either long or short nose is pretty comparable in power to weight ratio though.

- Ivan.

 

[awack]

Early jets weren't fantastic climbers.

The initial climb rates of early jets like the p80 and me 262 which during side by side test were shown to be equal, were really good, the initial climb speeds at sea level of early jets were from 240 too 279 mph, but the faster the jet goes the more thrust the engines produce, unlike piston engine fighters, so imagine a good condition me 262 with good working engines, (average me 262 was 518/519 mph at sea level) flying well over 520 mph at sea level, the power the engines are producing at this speed is awesome for the time, so climb rates for jets at high speed are pretty crazy when compared to piston engine fighters, this is of course one reason why jets have such awesome zoom climbs, to take it even further, once you start talking about climbing ability after a dive or the fact that jets like the me 262 carried 4700 pounds of fuel vs around 900 too 1100 pounds for fast climbing piston engine interceptors( so half way through a mission a jet has burned thousands of pounds of fuel compared with hundreds of pounds for prop jobs, meaning an even better climb rate)
Where a jet is really weak at is at the time of brake release and the slow speed build up down the runway and the time to build up speed before you reach your best climb speed(279 mph) piston engine fighters kick the hell out of early jets in this regard.