Bearcat inspired by FW-190?

[renrich]

An interesting comparison between the two AC, FW190 and F8F, which is obvious in looking at the two profiles. This point is often overlooked by "armchair" aerodynamicists. Grumman, in the F8F tried to maintain very good visibility over the nose for carrier landings which also facilitated full deflection gunnery. The FW190, because of it's good low drag characteristics had extremely poor visibility over the nose.

 

[drgondog]

Renrich - there is no real basis to asses the aero characteristics based on the nose comparisons. What the implied differences are could be a lower thrust line based on the 'look' but even that is speculation.

The drag characteristics between the two should be close, and I would speculate that the 190D may be slightly better, but still speculation.

 

[Timppa]

..The FW190, because of it's good low drag characteristics..

Although Fw190A looks quite sleeky, it had quite poor drag coefficient.

Compare eg. F4U-1 and Fw190A-8.
The power is practically the same, 2000hp on the deck (F4U MIL and Fw Special Emergency).

The Fw is only about 10mph faster OTD, although F4U-1 has some 60% more wing area and 20% more weight.

 

[drgondog]

Although Fw190A looks quite sleeky, it had quite poor drag coefficient.

Compare eg. F4U-1 and Fw190A-8.
The power is practically the same, 2000hp on the deck (F4U MIL and Fw Special Emergency).

The Fw is only about 10mph faster OTD, although F4U-1 has some 60% more wing area and 20% more weight.

Timppa - in your perusings on other forums, have you seen any drag polars for any of these ships? I am still pounding away on the aero sites to see if I can dig them up..

 

[renrich]

I misspoke and stuck my neck out mentioning low drag when I did not know the facts. Sorry. The point I was trying to make is that you see the Bearcat cockpit perched up high with the nose sloping away which afforded decent visibility straight ahead. The FW pilot sat very low with almost no visibility straight ahead over the gunsight.. I have a book with a photo of the FW pilot looking over the gunsight and there appears to be only about six inches above the gunsight and top of the windshield. The USN comparison between the FW and the F6F and F4U mentions that poor visibility forward also. Just the difference between an AC designed for operation from land bases and one designed for carrier landings.

 

[renrich]

The post by R Leonard is # 193 in the category polls, Best Pacific FighterII

 

[dunmunro1]

I would say that the FM-2, which was a lightened, cleaned up F4F, was probably an indication of where Grumman was heading and if anything the F8F is a further development of the FM-2 and in fact was due to be produced by GM as the FM-3.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I would say that the FM-2, which was a lightened, cleaned up F4F, was probably an indication of where Grumman was heading and if anything the F8F is a further development of the FM-2 and in fact was due to be produced by GM as the FM-3.

The FM-2 was based on the XF4F-8 which was designed for escort carriers.

 

[vinnye]

Just to add a little to this discussion - if I read correctly (may not have!) in the POLLinvolving the Gloster F5/34.
Gloster F.5/34 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think it said that the Gloster may have been a source that influenced the design of the Zero?
Looking at the design of the F5 - there do appear to be similarities?

 

[JoeB]

I would say that the FM-2, which was a lightened, cleaned up F4F, was probably an indication of where Grumman was heading and if anything the F8F is a further development of the FM-2 and in fact was due to be produced by GM as the FM-3.

GM produced F8F-1's would have been F3M-1's, not FM-3's, which is more than pure pickiness because FM-3 would denote a different variant of the same F4F/FM design, rather than a different design which the F8F obviously was compared to the F4F. Of course there was a family relationship and degree of family resemblance among the Grumman single engine prop fighters, all the way from FF thru F8F.

In general I think the idea of one country's a/c 'inspiring' anothers is usually a kind of thinking that sees one country or part of the world as more 'central', because that's where you're from, or that's the country you admire more. That's surely true in case of saying any British a/c inspired or much influenced the Zero, which is ridiculous. That's almost on the level of saying the P-26 'inspired' the I-16, another ridiculous statement often made at the time, and occasionally still repeated.

I don't give much credence to any special Fw-190 v. F8F connection either. The reqiurement that spawned the F8F was a pretty specific carrier fghter reqt: smaller a/c built around the same engine as F6F and F4U (R-2800) for smaller carriers, and/or for more interceptor-oriented performance (in climb, especially).

Joe

 

[dunmunro1]

Yes, F3M not FM3, my bad. But my point is that Grumman was doing a lot of R&D in terms of developing the lightweight FM-2 and the F8F is a natural extension of the same design process being used to produce a lightweight fighter with the R-2800 engine.