F8F Bearcat derived from FW190?

[GrauGeist]

Another point to consider, is that Grumman was more interested in providing a type that would remain ahead of Japanese development.

If there was a notion to "copy" a European type, that might make sense *if* the aircraft is to be active in European skies.

With the debut of such types as the N1K, J2M and KI-84 (all of which had bubble-style canopies, btw), the Allies had to up their game.

In regards to the origin of the true bubble canopy, I beleive it was Miles that introduced it on one of their fighter prototypes (which looked a great deal like the Typhoon) in 1939.

 

[Shortround6]

If you are coping somebody else's in service fighter you are already way behind the game as you are coping what they were drawing, mocking up and prototype testing 2-3 years ago.
By the time you get the copy in service they will be introducing their next generation fighter.

 

[GregP]

From what I read, Grumman was very interested in the tightly-cowled Fw 190 since it presented a much more narrow cross section than had it been cowled conventionally. And, naturally, they were interested in the roll rate. But, that is the extent of it. They did NOT emulate the Fw's annular oil cooler nor the cooling fan that more or less slightly pressurized the interior of the Fw cowling, either.

They simply tried their best to make a very small airframe with a big engine ... hardly stealing a design. They did not quite succeed in making the F8F roll as well as the Fw 190, but they certainly came up with a winner in the Bearcat. Had it been fielded in 1944, the war would likely have ended a bit sooner ... but it would be folly on my part to speculate by how much. I'll just say the F8F would have been vastly superior to whatever it fought against .... but, it would have had to fight very much closer to the carrier than either the F6F or F4U because the F8F's range wasn't anything to write home about. It was a shining star as far as an air superiority fighter goes, however.

The French didn't steal the German radial designs, they outright copied them, with license at times and without at times. They made no bones about copying German jet engines immediately post-war; the SNECMA Atar was derived directly from the BMW 018 engine. There were others. Their Morane-Saulnier Criquet was a direct copy of the Feiseler Storch and it was produced until 1965 with a variety of engine and metal wings. The French weren't exactly alone. Many countries produced engines and aircraft that copied directly or in part from other designs. Witness the Soviet Tu-4, among many others. Who can look at a Fuji T-1 and NOT see the F-86 inside?

 

[swampyankee]

There do seem to be a large number of people who believe that all aerodynamic advances during WW2 were the responsibility of the Germans.

This is nonsense. Grumman may have been influenced by the FW190's general performance, but fan-cooling? Do note that no US production aircraft with radial engines used fan-cooling; this isn't because the idea wasn't known -- it's pretty obvious -- but because the US engineers were able to get adequate engine cooling with low installed drag without a fan. While I do have respect for the German aeronautical engineers of the WW2 era, I don't have adulation. They were competent, but not dominant.

 

[Shortround6]

Do note that no US production aircraft with radial engines used fan-cooling; this isn't because the idea wasn't known -- it's pretty obvious --

I agree with a lot of what you said but I have one correction (maybe?) to the quoted sentence, there was a production batch of A US aircraft that used fan cooled engines, at least in WW II.

259 Martin PBM-3Ds may have been built with fan cooled 1900hp R-2600s. This is out of 1366 planes total, As the PBM got heavier the original 1600hp engines (without fans) wouldn't cut it any more and the change was made. This engine installation was so successful (sarcasm) that the power and cooling problem was handled in the next 628 PBMs by using P&W R-R2800s, without fans.

Obviously this use of fan cooled engines was a little known blip on the US engine scene and I offer it up as an interesting factoid., as many short histories of the PBM never mention it.

 

[Navalwarrior]

Getting back to the original question. Many designers picked up a trick or two from somebody else's existing airplane, or saw how a feature could improve things. That is how progress is made.
But that is a lot different than taking an existing airframe and slapping a different engine on it and then saying that was the starting point. Especially when the the finished product is so different. Different wing, different flaps, different landing gear, different fuselage and on and on.

Grumman made carrier planes. The stalling speed of the 190 was quite a bit higher than any carrier of the time operated planes at.
Grumman could look at a 190 and say "big engine, small airframe" and perhaps pick up a few details here and there but the 190 would have been a bust trying to operate of the smaller carriers and the Grumman people would have known it in minutes (if not seconds).

Resp:
You are correct in that many designers/engineers picked up ideas from others. It is rare that greatness comes from one source. Aviation made leaps and bounds during WWII. Some of it came from captured aircraft. The Germans admired the Spitfire and the men who flew it.

 

[fliger747]

The plane a few posts above looks like a mockup?

 

[Zipper730]

From what I remember, the F8F was inspired by the limitations of CVE's. The idea was to produce a lightweight fighter (at least by the standards of the F4U & F6F, certainly the F7F -- about the same weight as the F4F) that was capable of operating off the decks of a CVE with performance that (presumably) was equal or superior to the F6F/F4U aircraft.

This proposal was supposedly submitted by Grumman in 1942.

 

[Shortround6]

The plane a few posts above looks like a mockup?

It flew and rather well. It was a very early P-40 airframe (P-40 no letter) that was sold (or bailed) to P & W for engine development work in Sept 1940. I have no idea what they did with it after they first got it or how many changes it went through but there are at least 4 photos of it and a number of written accounts/records. By late 1942 it was in the form in the photograph and P &W was claiming 315mph at sea level and 388mph at 25,000ft making this the 4th fastest P-40 ever built
Please note the plane had no armor, no self sealing tanks and no guns. (wings had space for two .30s in each wing but they were covered over) reason for the small hole in each inner gun cover is unknown.
reportedly P & W test pilots engaged in mock dog fights with AAF units stationed nearby equipped with P-40Fs routinely cleaned their clocks. Of course the fact that the plane routinely flew at a gross weight of 7,107lbs might have had something to do with it
It was estimated that the weight would have been 8300lbs with full military equipment and armament (unspecified)

I was mistaken, the plane does have cowl flaps.

 

[GrauGeist]

In regards to the origin of the true bubble canopy, I beleive it was Miles that introduced it on one of their fighter prototypes (which looked a great deal like the Typhoon) in 1939.

Finally on the computer and to expand on my quoted post, it was the M.20 that had the first true bubble canopy.

Miles came up with some odd birds in their time, but the canopy was certainly on the mark.

 

[fliger747]

Found Corky Meyer's "Flight Journal"

P 144 he discusses Leyroy Grumman, Bud Gillies and Bob Hall going to England and flying the FW 190. Prior to this discussion had been underway with regards to the follow on to the Hellcat. Since engines of much greater HP were not on the horizon, a smaller lighter airplane would be the direction. After flying the 190 they commented they wished that this had been the aircraft they had designed instead of the Hellcat. Heading home they put together the basics for a design that would meet the unique demands of a naval aircraft.

Certainly not a copy, but an awakening of a certain design path they could take.

Corky's book is an interesting read if you haven't had a peek at it!

Cheers: Tom

 

[pinehilljoe]

This sounds more like parallel developments of logical evolution. Mr Grumman taking the largest engine in the smallest airframe, and creating the F8.

 

[fliger747]

That's pretty much what they said at the time, in this case the smallest airframe that could handle the R2800. One of their developmental challenges was to keep the weight about the same as the FW190 and meet all the challenges of an effective Naval Aircraft. Weight reduction even went so far as not having the pilot seat adjustable, pilot sat on varying sets of cushions.

 

[Elvis]

The Spitfire 9 came about because of the Fw 190. Was the F-15 a copy of the MiG-25? Technologies advances and so does the competition. Look at modern motor sports. It's an arms race in which having yesterday's tech loses.

What I find interesting is that people generally have a difficult time realizing that R&D of a single design type (like a "fighter plane", for instance) could yield similar results in various countries, simultaneously.
I once mentioned about the similarity, in appearance, of the FW190 to the Swedish J22, but no one thinks one design influenced the other (there's enough differences to realize they're two different airplanes, but there are a lot of similarities, too).
...FWIW, I had always understood the F8F was the result of "weight trimming" of the F6F.


Elvis

 

[pinehilljoe]

What I find interesting is that people generally have a difficult time realizing that R&D of a single design type (like a "fighter plane", for instance) could yield similar results in various countries, simultaneously.



Elvis

Its like today's cars, everyone's wind tunnel is coming with the same profile.

But I should add, there were damn good engineers in the design teams that produced the final designs.

 

[Elvis]

Right?!...if you realize giving a wing a thinner cross-section will reduce drag, that's not just your little secret, it's common sense.
Chances are very good that thousands, if not millions of people across the globe have had the same notion at the same time.
The trick is to be the one everyone will remember as announcing that idea and putting into actual use, FIRST.


Elvis

 

[Shortround6]

It wasn't that big a secret.
The reason there are so many different airfoils is that they have different lift to drag ratios. If you have a very thin wing with low drag it may not have the same lift for the size at the same speeds. Great if you want to go fast, not so good for take - off and landing.
Some airfoils showed more of a change in their lift to drag ratio as the speed increased. The Davis airfoil on the B-24 bomber helped it out perform the B-17 but the drag rise at speeds much higher than the bombers flew at ruled it out for fighters.

The problem was getting the right blend of characteristics for the plane you wanted. A 390mph fighter is no good to the navy if it hits the arresting wires at 95mph.

 

[Elvis]

...I know shortround has a point to make....( )

 

[Shortround6]

...I know shortround has a point to make....( )

yeah, don't try to reply on a tablet while taking care of the wife

 

[pbehn]

I am sure there were studious efforts to emulate the Fw-190s power on stall behaviour.