F7F Tigercat in Europe

[Nathunt]

Just reading through other forum threads discussing if the F6F Hellcat and/or F4U Corsair could escort 4 engined Bombers to Berlin and it got me wondering...

Could the P-65/F7F Tigercat be capable of doing the job as a long range fighter escort over NW Europe.

Keen to hear your thoughts!

 

[glennasher]

I"d think it would run into the same issues ANY heavy fighter did against single-engined fighters, too heavy and not exactly competitive against them. The F7F was too late for the European war, in any case.

I have a lot of respect for the Tigercat, but I don't think it would have had a place there.

 

[tomo pauk]

Could the P-65/F7F Tigercat be capable of doing the job as a long range fighter escort over NW Europe.

As-is: no, since it carried meager amount of internal fuel.
Another thing is that it was too late, by at least 15 months.

 

[pinehilljoe]

It would have been a good night fighter in place of the P-61, beating the P-61 in speed.

 

[33k in the air]

As-is: no, since it carried meager amount of internal fuel.

426 gallons of internal fuel for the F7F-1 is meager? That's slightly more internal fuel than the P-38J. Add a 150-gallon drop tank and the fuel load goes up to 576 gallons.

 

[tomo pauk]

426 gallons of internal fuel for the F7F-1 is meager? That's slightly more internal fuel than the P-38J. Add a 150-gallon drop tank and the fuel load goes up to 576 gallons.

Fellow member enquired about bomber escort all the way to Berlin. The razorback P-47s were barely able to cover the Ruhr, with 305 US gals of internal fuel + drop tank(s). The F7F will need 600 US gals of internal fuel just to mimic that.
The bubbletop P-47Ds gotten more fuel in internal tanks, now it was 370 gals; together with 2x 150 gals in drop tanks, the combat radius was 600 miles now, and they were indeed able to reach Berlin, fight there, and return to their bases. We'd need 700+ US gals of internal fuel on the F7F so it can mimic the combat radius of the bubbletop P-47Ds.

The V-1710 used much less fuel than the R-2800.

 

[Nathunt]

426 gallons does seem a lot but for a plane like the Tigercat it doesn't sound like a lot as all of the fuel is in the fuselage. then when you add either 1x 300gal drop tank in the centreline or 2x 150gal drop tanks under the wings, it still ain't enough to go to Berlin.

Also, the engine on the F7F are single stage/two speed superchargers so I'm not sure if the high altitide performance would of been as good like the P-47 or P-51.

 

[Shortround6]

Also, the engine on the F7F are single stage/two speed superchargers so I'm not sure if the high altitide performance would of been as good like the P-47 or P-51.

It wouldn't.

The F7Fs got "C" series engines (basic engine like the P-47M/N) and they had several thousand feet of altitude over the "B" series engines used in the A-26 and late B-26.
SO even if you could get F7F airframes you would be stuck with the older engines. The old engines were good for 1600hp at 13,500ft and the new engines were good for 1600hp at 16,000ft. That is military power and it doesn't matter what they could do with WEP because it is only available at lower altitudes. The -22W engines in the F7F-1 were good for 1850hp at 14,000ft. May have offered a bit more power at 16,000ft than military but it wasn't going to do much over 20,000ft.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Speeds are with external loads

F6F-3, 250 gallons internal, 150 external, maximum speed 348 mph at 23,900 feet, combat radius 335 nautical miles.

F6F-5, 250 gallons internal, 150 external, maximum speed 355 mph at 23,900 feet, combat radius 340 nautical miles.

F7F-1, 426 gallons internal, 300 external, maximum speed 397 mph at 23,000 feet, combat radius 435 nautical miles.

F4U-1, 237 gallons internal, 175 external, maximum speed 387 mph at 24,600 feet, combat radius 340 nautical miles. However combat radius limited by amount of protected fuel for combat and return, 48 gallons remain in tank at combat radius and must be dropped or used to increase cruise out speed from 160 to 259 knots or for 64 minutes search at V for max range.

F4U-1D, 237 gallons internal, 300 external, maximum speed 353 mph at 24,200 feet, combat radius 335 nautical miles. However Combat radius limited by amount of protected fuel for combat and return, 145.7 gallons remain in tank at combat radius and must be dropped or used to increase cruise out speed to V max (286 knots) or for 2.32 hours search at V for max range

Class VF Airplanes. Practical combat radius is: 20 min, warm-up and idling (see notes 3 and 5 below), 1 min. take-off (see notes 4 and 5), 20 min. rendezvous at 60% normal sea-level power (N.S.P.) and auto lean (see notes 6, 7 and 8), climb to 15,000 feet at 60% N.S.P. and auto rich (see notes 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10), Cruise-out at 15,000 feet at V for max. range and auto lean, drop bombs and unprotected droppable tanks (see notes 13 and 14), 20 min. combat at 15,000 feet (see note 15), Descend, Cruise-back at 1,500 feet at 170 knots true air speed and auto lean (see notes 11 and 12), 60 min. at V for max. range and auto lean as allowance for rendezvous, landing and reserve, see notes 1, 2, 17 and 19.

1. Radius is given in nautical miles

2. In calculating radius, engine requirement fuel consumption data are increased 15% and flight test fuel consumption data are increased 5% at all power conditions of conventional engines For J.P. engines, use one half of the above percentage increases.

3. Warm-up:

a) Conventional Engines: 20 min, warm-up at 1/2 rated RPM on propeller load curve. Fuel consumed in pounds in 10 min. warm-up (including 15% increase) may be taken as 0.03 times sea level normal rated BHP of engines.

b) J.P. Engines: Equivalent to 30 sec. warm-up at maximum static thrust. Fuel consumed in pounds (including 7.5% increase) in warm-up and accelerating to maximum static thrust may be taken as 1.2% of the maximum static thrust rating of the J.P. engines at sea level.

c) Combination of Conventional and J.P Engines: Fuel consumed in warm up of all engines in accordance with (a) and (b) above, is considered in calculating radius unless it is specified that J.P. engines shall not be used for take-off in which case conventional engines only are warmed up.

4. Take off:

a) Conventional Engines: 1 min. take-off at rated take-off power.

b) J.P. Engines: 1 min. take-off at rated take-off thrust.

c) Combination of Conventional and J.P Engines: Conventional engines used at rated take-off power for 1 min. and J.P engines used at rated take-off thrust for 30 sec. All engines used for take-off unless it is specified that J.P. engines shall not be used.

5. Warm-up and take-off on internal protected fuel. Protected tanks may be refilled with fuel from unprotected tanks if fuel pump for this purpose is incorporated in the design. This will be noted on the sheet.

6. Rendezvous, climb and cruise out is on unprotected fuel if available.

7. For airplanes with combination of conventional and J.P. engines, the J.P. engines are not used in rendezvous, climb and cruise-out cruise-back and landing.

8. For airplanes with J.P engines only (no conventional engines)

a) 10 min. rendezvous at 60% normal rated thrust at sea level.

b) Climb to 15,000 feet is at maximum military rated thrust.

9. Auto. rich is used for climb unless flight test data are available indicating satisfactory engine cooling characteristics in climb with auto. lean.

10. If average rate of climb in climbing to 15,000 feet at 60% N.S.P. is less that 400 ft./min., climb is given at full normal rated power and auto rich.

11. Cruise-out or cruise-back speeds less than V for maximum range or greater than V at 60% N.S.P. are not used in calculating radius. Only a few of the older airplanes or new airplanes of special design are affected by this note.

12. For airplanes with J.P. engines only (no conventional engines), cruise-out and cruise-back at speed for maximum range.

13. If it is necessary to drop fuel before entering combat, the following note will be added. "Combat radius limited by amount of protected fuel for use in combat and return. XXX gal. fuel remain in unprotected tanks when entering combat and must be dropped, used for approximately YYY hrs. search, or used to increase speed in cruising-out to approximately ZZZ knots."

14. Radar if specified for the airplane is carried the full distance out and back in all radius problems.

15. Combat at 15,000 feet - Class VF Airplanes

a) Conventional engines: Combat 20 min. of which 10 min. is at war emergency rated power and 10 min. is at military rated power. If war emergency rating is not available, combat 20 min. at military rated power.

b) J.P. Engines: Combat at 15 min. at military thrust rating at 15,000 feet and maximum airplane speed.

c) Combination of Conventional and J.P Engines: Combat 20 min. of which 10 min. is at war emergency rated power for conventional engines plus military rated thrust of J.P. and 10 min. is at military rated power of conventional engines plus idling J.P. engines. If war emergency rating is not available, use military rated power.

16. Combat at 1,500 feet - Class VB, VBT, VSB and VTB Airplanes

a) Conventional engines: Combat 15 min. of which 5 min. is at war emergency rated power and 10 min. is at normal rated power. If war emergency rating is not available, combat 5 min. at military rated power and 10 min. at normal rated power.

b) J.P. Engines: Combat at 10 min. at military rated thrust at 1,500 feet and maximum airplane speed.

c) Combination of Conventional and J.P Engines: Combat 15 min. of which 5 min. is at war emergency rated power of conventional engines plus military rated thrust of J.P. engines and 10 min. is at normal rated power of conventional engines plus idling J.P. engines. If war emergency rating is not available, use military rated power.

17. Radius includes distance covered in climb, but not descent or dive.

18. In listing the scouting radius and the search radius, the following note will be added. " Practical XXX radius is reduced YYY nautical miles for each minute of combat at 1,500 feet at war emergency rated power of conventional engines plus military rated thrust of J.P. engines." In the note, military rated power is used if war emergency power rating is not available and reference to J.P engines is deleted if they are not incorporated in the airplane.

19. The complete radius problem is stated on the sheets.

 

[ThomasP]

Hey Geoffrey Sinclair,

Do you have the date for the above mission planning parameters. The reason I ask is that the amount of time allowed for Military and WEP changed over the period being discussed (1942-45?). I think a couple of other parameters changed also, but at the moment I do remember which ones.

With the J.P. engine parameters included I assume 1945-post-war?

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

While many of the performance sheets are dated later the section with the radius notes is dated 1 July 1944.

 

[tomo pauk]

FWIW:

 

[Barrett]

Lots of excellent info here...
Now a sidebar:
Even in the unlikely case that F7Fs were approved for the ETO, GENERAL OF THE ARMY G.C. Marshall would've banned 'em. "As long as I'm chief of staff there will never be a marine in Europe." He was still cranky about the Leathernecks' splashy headlines from the Great War. So were other grads of Army Tech.

Let's hear it for The Potomac Front...

 

[33k in the air]

The F7F was also being developed for the Army as the P-65, but eventually the Army backed out of the program, leaving the aircraft to the Navy.

 

[Nathunt]

Would the later German fighters like the Bf 109K, Ta 152C/H or Fw 190 Dora series been a worthy challenger to the Tigercats?

 

[tomo pauk]

Would the later German fighters like the Bf 109K, Ta 152C/H or Fw 190 Dora series been a worthy challenger to the Tigercats?

IMO - the 109D will be thereabout wrt. raw performance, the 109K a bit better, and Ta 152 much better.
These German fighters should also roll and turn better than the F7F, while also being smaller targets to spot and hit (a common shortcoming of most of the 2-engined fighters).

 

[yulzari]

The solution seems quite impressive. Now what was the problem?

 

[Frog]

The F7F was also being developed for the Army as the P-65, but eventually the Army backed out of the program, leaving the aircraft to the Navy.

Lots of excellent info here...
Now a sidebar:
Even in the unlikely case that F7Fs were approved for the ETO, GENERAL OF THE ARMY G.C. Marshall would've banned 'em. "As long as I'm chief of staff there will never be a marine in Europe." He was still cranky about the Leathernecks' splashy headlines from the Great War. So were other grads of Army Tech.

Let's hear it for The Potomac Front...

Marshall was in fact wrong. There were Marines serving with the Jedburghs detachments, Marines observing naval gunfire during D-Day and when the Rangers reported being in great trouble at the Pointe Du Hoc, the Marine detachment aboard battleship Texas was alerted for a possible landing to reinforce the Rangers. This finally did not occur, possibly because Army staff did not want headlines like '' the Marines rescue the Rangers ''.
French admiral Lemonnier who commanded the French Naval Forces during operation Dragoon reported that when he landed with US admiral Hewitt to assess the naval gunfire, they had a Marine escort.

 

[Nathunt]

IMO - the 109D will be thereabout wrt. raw performance, the 109K a bit better, and Ta 152 much better.
These German fighters should also roll and turn better than the F7F, while also being smaller targets to spot and hit (a common shortcoming of most of the 2-engined fighters).

The F7F also had similar issues with compressibility much like the P-38 Lightning and the use of the Dive Recovery Flaps was planned to be placed on underneath the outer wings as like the P-38, But in October 1945 they decided not to worry with installing the dive flaps as they felt it wasn't necessary.

Fair to say the Tigercat would of been pretty decent in a dive but the P-47 and P-51 were the best in a dive.