F7F Tigercat

GregP · Feb 16, 2017

Roll inertia was and IS an issue for alomst all planes with significant weight outboard. It takes more force to get it moving and, once moving, it takes as much or more to get it to STOP moving.

One rather innovative solution the British came up with resulted in one of best-performing earlier jets to mever take flight, the English Electric Lightning. The engines were both on centerline and the roll rate was fantastic, as was the climb rate, the acceleration, and especially the fuel consumption.

I was giving a tour once at the museum when we had a former Lightning pilot come through. I asked him if it really WAS a Mach 2 jet and he stopped, rubbed his chin, and slowly said, "You could get it up to Mach 2 going TOWARD the fuel. If you ever got it up to Mach 2 going AWAY from the fuel, you'd never get back to the fuel!"

Zipper730 · Feb 17, 2017

I was thinking about something: The F9F's fuel-tanks actually increased roll-rate because it affected vortex formation

GregP · Feb 17, 2017

Navy airplanes have never been sparking rollers ... by design intent. The old "Flying Characteristics of Piloted Naval Aircraft" Mil-Spec tells it like it is. VERY specific requirement for roll, pitch, and yaw, none of which will ever set world records ... but all of which contribute to fewer carrier accidents.

Zipper730 · Feb 17, 2017

GregP said:
Navy airplanes have never been sparking rollers ... by design intent.

I assume you mean during the war and earlier right? Because from what I remember the F-8 had a very good rate of roll...

The old "Flying Characteristoics of Piloted Naval Aircraft" Mil-Spec tells it like it is. VERY specific requirement for roll, pitch, and ywa, none of which wille ver set world records ... but all of which contribute to fewer carrier accidents.

I thought the requirements called for good roll-control at low-speed with low stick movement?

GregP · Feb 17, 2017

I have a copy somewhere in storage and there are no specs that are exactly sparkling in roll. The FW 190 is famous for being a good roller, but it is within a specific speed range ... admittedly decently wide. It's roll rate would have been disallowed by Navy specs, spectacular though it was.

Someone in here MUST have a copy they can reach and read.

Perhaps it was "Flying Characteristics of Manned Naval Aircraft." It has been years since I read it, and I waws shocked at how low the required responses were. It went a LONG way to explaining why the Hellcat flew the way it flew and why the Corsair was initially rejected for carrier service.

XBe02Drvr · Feb 17, 2017

Zipper730 said:
I was thinking about something: The F9F's fuel-tanks actually increased roll-rate because it affected vortex formation

There's a difference between peak roll rate and initial roll response. A plane with full tiptanks might achieve a high sustained roll rate, and yet have a sluggish initial response due to the inertia of accelerating all that distributed mass in a rotational direction. It's the sluggish initial response that's fatal if you get upset on short final to the carrier.
Cheers
Wes

Zipper730 · Feb 17, 2017

XBe02Drvr said:
There's a difference between peak roll rate and initial roll response.

True

A plane with full tiptanks might achieve a high sustained roll rate, and yet have a sluggish initial response due to the inertia of accelerating all that distributed mass in a rotational direction. It's the sluggish initial response that's fatal if you get upset on short final to the carrier.

That makes sense, but the F9F's tip-tanks were not able to be jettisoned, which makes me wonder why.

My question is would it be suitable for carrier use without it? This isn't the F9F-6 but the straight wingers

Zipper730 · Feb 17, 2017

GregP said:
The FW 190 is famous for being a good roller, but it is within a specific speed range ... admittedly decently wide.

But inadequate at low-speeds...

Someone in here MUST have a copy they can reach and read.

I'd love to see it

Perhaps it was "Flying Characteristics of Manned Naval Aircraft." It has been years since I read it, and I waws shocked at how low the required responses were.

You mean low response to control stick movement? I always thought they had to be quite responsive...

It went a LONG way to explaining why the Hellcat flew the way it flew

If I recall the F6F had a decent roll-rate, though not spectacular, with an excellent turn and climb-rate...

and why the Corsair was initially rejected for carrier service.

It had a torque-stall at first and bad spin traits right?

GregP · Feb 18, 2017

The Corsair's biggest issue was bouncing upon touchdown, multiple times. That's a matter of valving in the struts, pressure in the tires, and sink rate.
Next, it had NO visibility over the nose when slow, and little when faster. Never corrected. Definitely a positive-g fighter. If you push, you have NO idea what's there.
Third, it had abysmal response to go-around at carrier touchdown speeds. This was cured with training and, in the case of the F2G, with small portion of the rudder (bottom) having a throttle interconnect. Push the throttle and the small bottom part moves hard right. The roll response was also a bit slower at low speed and a bit higher at higher speeds than the Navy wanted, but they could have lived with that since it was close.

That is a synposis, not an exact quote. The wording might have been different.

The Biritsh embarrassed the Navy by accepting the Corsair and WE did rather shortly after that.

The Navy always DID have thin skin, and still does.They'd rather fight than admit being wrong, ayntime, ever. Doesn't make them less effective, but it makes it hard to deal with the Navy. To this very day, if you raise a U.S. Navy plane from the bottom of the ocean, they'll let you get it to the surface and home, and will then come to claim it. Moral of the story is if you DO, don't send it to the U.S.A. U.S. restoreres know that.

And get a release of aircraft to ownership before ever letting it land in the U.S.A.. When they take it, you will not get reimburssed.

XBe02Drvr · Feb 18, 2017

Zipper730 said:
True
That makes sense, but the F9F's tip-tanks were not able to be jettisoned, which makes me wonder why.

My question is would it be suitable for carrier use without it? This isn't the F9F-6 but the straight wingers

You don't want jettisonable tiptanks on a carrier aircraft. What happens if one goes and the other doesn't? Stuff like that happens. Manageable on a 250 ft X 10,000 ft runway, not so much on a pitching carrier deck crowded with explosive-laden aircraft. Besides, that ever-thirsty turbine just about guarantees you'll almost never land with any fuel left in the tips.
Suitable for carrier use without tiptanks? It would certainly handle better, but would probably be so range-limited as to be not much use. Remember, those early turbojets were real fuel-hogs.

XBe02Drvr · Feb 18, 2017

GregP said:
The Navy always DID have thin skin, and still does.They'd rather fight than admit being wrong, ayntime, ever.

THE NAVY IS ALWAYS RIGHT!
It's the rest of the world that's prone to error!

GregP · Feb 19, 2017

I like the quote from "In Harm's Way," when Henry Fonda says, "Now, we all know the Navy is never wrong. But, in this case, it seems they were just a little short of being right!"

Zipper730 · Feb 20, 2017

GregP said:
The Navy always DID have thin skin

Do you know why?

Doesn't make them less effective, but it makes it hard to deal with the Navy.

I could imagine

KiwiBiggles · Feb 20, 2017

Zipper730 said:
Do you know why?

I think it's something to do with salt water. It wears away the outer layers of the skin.

Or maybe their diet of salt beef and peas.

GregP · Feb 21, 2017

Have NO idea why.

Will not speculate, but criticism is not something the Navy tolerates well. Well, that was 1980s.

Maybe different today? Can't say.

Zipper730 · Feb 21, 2017

KiwiBiggles,

I like it...

XBe02Drvr · Feb 21, 2017

GregP said:
Have NO idea why.

Will not speculate, but criticism is not something the Navy tolerates well. Well, that was 1980s.

Maybe different today? Can't say.

I feel qualified to speculate, having been there and seen it from the inside.
It's a longstanding entrenched tradition, going back to revolutionary times and before. I think it has something to do with the Navy always perceiving itself as "odd man out" of the services: it has a rank structure, language, culture, and traditions radically different than the other services, even its "sister service", the Marines. Seamen have always tended to look down on landsmen, even back to Greek/Roman times, certain that they understood the land better than any landsman could ever understand the sea.
In the early years of the nation, it wasn't so bad, as we were a coastal population, and a high percentage worked on and understood the sea, but as we became more of a contimental power that percentage dwindled, and with it the consciousness of sea power. The Navy always had to fight for funding and for the autonomy to carry out its mission free of constraints by self-appointed "experts" who thought they understood sea power because they had conducted a successful political or military campaign.

Robert Porter · Feb 22, 2017

Recently there was an attempt by the Secretary of the Navy to "simplify" the Naval Enlisted rank structure. Apparently it was met with a significant backlash and subsequently abandoned. One of my Uncles was in the Navy and he always said the Navy as a whole was very jealous of its traditions. The example he gave me was a Frigate he was chief engineer on, the Captain decided to not allow the normal crossing of the equator ceremony. The ship suddenly developed serious engineering issues requiring the vessel stop dead in the water. These mysterious issues continued until the Captain rescinded his order then a miracle occurred and the previously disabled engines restarted with no intervention.

XBe02Drvr · Feb 22, 2017

Yep, that's "the Navy way"!

XBe02Drvr · Feb 22, 2017

It's amazing how much better the engines work when you turn the fuel pump circuit breakers back on.
Cheers
Wes

F7F Tigercat

Major

Chief Master Sergeant

Major

Chief Master Sergeant

Major

2nd Lieutenant

Chief Master Sergeant

Chief Master Sergeant

Major

2nd Lieutenant

2nd Lieutenant

Major

Chief Master Sergeant

Senior Airman

Major

Chief Master Sergeant

2nd Lieutenant

Senior Master Sergeant

2nd Lieutenant

2nd Lieutenant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads