Bearcat inspired by FW-190?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Pretty sure.

Almost all the reading material I have on my shelves about the Fw 190 mentions exhaust coming into the cockpit if it was even slightly open, issues sealing the firewall for exhaust, the cockpit temperature being high, and the need for blank 20 mm cartridges to open the canopy if the pilot needed to bail out. Perhaps the books are wrong but, if so, I can't correct the print from any parsonal knowledge of same.

We have a new-built Fw 190 at the museum that flies. I have never asked the people who fly it is that is true with the replica airplane. Seems like a good question to ask about when I next see the pilot involved (somewhat infrequently these days).
 
Last edited:
I cannot think of a single engine fighter that did not have cockpit fumes issues in the early prototype stage.

354th Fighter Group During WWII

History of the 354th Fighter Group during World War II
www.354thpmfg.com
"Before the first prototype had flown, however, a decision had been taken to replace the BMW 139 by the more powerful but longer and heavier BMW 801. This necessitated a number of major changes, including structural strengthening and relocation of the cockpit farther aft: the latter change solved a centre of gravity problem and, as a bonus, that of pilot discomfort from fumes and overheating of the cockpit, caused by proximity of the engine with the BMW 139 installation."
Fw 190 G-3 Performance Test FW 190G test noting no issues with fumes in the cockpit.
 
I read different books. They stated specifically that the fumes in the cockpit was never fully corrected and that, as a result, pilots flew with canopies shut and mostly with oxygen. I had and have no real reason to delve into whether or not that was the fact since it seems relatively unimportant given the fact that they flew Fw 190s from when they were first delivered until the end of the war. So, whether or not that was true, it made no operational difference. I suspect you may be right and the engine fume issue was cured in production.

However, I don't recall ever having read about that being and issue with another fighter in the many references I have. That is why it stood out to me as interesting, even if not an issue in operations. Interesting doesn't mean it is completely true, but it sticks in my mind anyway ...

Just for clarity, I have flown in a P-51D and a P-40N and never smelled exhaust, ever. Didn't in a B-25, either (and wouldn't expect to), or an AT-6 or a BT-13.

Alas, I have not flown in a big-engine radial-powered naval fighter and have no experience with whether or not exhaust gets in the cockpit in one. If I were to suspect one to send exhaust ionto the cockpit, it would be a Hawker Sea Fury due to the placementof the side exhaust pipes.

This is interesting, but not enough to argue over it. I'll accept info from someone who flies big-engine, radial-powered airplanes. By big-engine, I mean R-2600, R-2800, R-3350, or similar engines. The Sea Fury qualifies since the Bristol Centaurus is definitely in the big-displacement category, bigger than an R-1830, anyway. The ones I have seen that used to fly Reno mostly had R-3350s in them, but there have been enough Bristol units around Chino to suspect them of sending some laughing gas into the cockpit area.
 
Last edited:

Except for the prototypes, there is nothing to be found in any books in my possession about the engine fumes in the cockpit of the Würger.
The only 2 planes , to my knowledge, that required continuous use of oxygen mask were the typhoon and the tempest (operational airframes) as the fumes in the cockpit are well documented, at least it's mentioned in all books about those planes. The third, was the La-5, first version, but the flew with canopy open (i actually doubt they had oxygen masks installed in this version)
An other reason why LW pilot's flew with the helmet on (not the O²mask necessarily) was due to the jugular microphone that was part of the helmet itself (as were the speakers).
Würger's canopy was impossible to open above 150km/h (or something around that speed) due to the aerodynamic airflow , that's the reason for the cardridge ejection system.

As for the original question, i doubt Grunmann has copied any part of the 190, but they got influenced by the concept: small and very Rigid airframe with a big radial.
To rebound on this, did NA copied 190's wings? i also doubt very much, but the applied the same construction method of 1 full wing with the fuselage bolted on it that allowed a lot of rigidity in the wings.
Sometimes you're influenced by a concept and build your own stuff based on it and sometimes you need to achieve a certain technical goal and you get to use the same technique as other people without even knowing it.
 
The Fw 190 has a very unusual wing design for the internal structure. The Bearcat has a conventional wing structure that looks nothing like an Fw 190 wing structure and also has folding wing tips.

The main oddity in the Bearcat wing was the "blow away" explosive outer wing separation equipment, which was de-activated in later service.
 
 
This is kind of thread drifting, but as installations of radials and the P-36 have been diskussed, I'd thought I bring up a point that has puzzled me for quite some time.

One of the things that makes the Ki-100 look a lot like the P-36 is the wide radial on the slender fuselage, many other examples of changes to radials involved a redesign of the fuselage, at least in the cockpit area. But the P-36 had this feature from the beginning, and I wonder why? it almost looks like it was designed to accept an inline without the need for redesigning the fuselage. Or is it some aerodynamic 'trick' that I don't know about? That could easily be the case, a few other radial fighters have similar if rarely equally pronounched features. Is there another reason? I add a drawing of (I think) the Mohawk IV. It was the most extreme example I could find, but all the many radials fitted to the P-36 does have engines 'too wide' for the fuselage.

I hope somebody is in the know.

 
Just Schmidt said:
But the P-36 had this feature from the beginning, and I wonder why? it almost looks like it was designed to accept an inline without the need for redesigning the fuselage.
Click to expand...
That is the P-36/H-75 with the R-1820, that was a pretty wide engine (55 in diameter). The P-36 versions with the R-1830 were narrower in the nose due to that engine being of smaller diameter (48.2 in).
However, the 1st prototype of the future P-36 was designed around an even narrower engine, the Wright XR-1670-5, with the diameter of just 45 in.
article
model

Thus the relatively narrow fuselage.
 
Hi,
I guess its kind of like how the Concorde was influenced by the Wright Flyer in that it used wings and engine(s) to produce lift to make it fly just like the Wright brothers did
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Bearcat roll rate
2 3
Replies
49
Views
5K
GregP
W
Focke Wulf 190
Replies
19
Views
2K
Tiger11
T
B
Supply by air in Burma
Replies
2
Views
315
Thumpalumpacus
FW-190 and The Battle of Britain
2 3
Replies
56
Views
11K
tomo pauk
A
information on fw 200 F8+KR from KG 40?
Replies
15
Views
722
SaparotRob
Menu
Log in
Register