F8F Bearcat derived from FW190?

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

The Corsair had an approach speed at a typical landing weight of about 87 knots (That's 100 mph). However no WWII Naval Fighter was designed to hit the wires at that speed. The Phabulous Pheroshous Ph Phour Phantom would hit the wires at maybe 100 knots or a little less. The secret, wind over the deck. Back to "MPH"... a nice wind over the deck would be 30-40 mph. 25 knot ( 29 mph) ship speed plus in the Pacific typical 15 knot (17 mph) Trade Winds. Off the Italian Coast the Jeep Carriers were having fits with their Seafires because of a max ship speed of maybe 18 knots and no wind! High proportion of landing aircraft disqualifications.

Right up there with stall (maybe more important) was "wave off" characteristics. For the "Beer Cat", a bad tendency to torque roll with too fast application of go around power. Behavior at the "cut" was also important. For the F6F full back stick was applied at the cut, mostly to attempt to compensate for the serious nose down tendency with quick power reduction.

Carrier operations do a good job of exposing just about every bad portion of an aircrafts flight envelope!

Happy New Year!
 
I had never given the FW190 much more credit than been another good WW2 plane, but the more I've read (especially from pilots or designers who were there in WW2 - not post war historians) the FW190 was a huge influence and a shock in 1941-2 and became the plane to beat. Unfortunately for the legend of the FW190 by 1945 it had been equalled or surpassed by many other planes so we all think of it just another plane and wonder why guys who were there at the time credit it so highly.
 
fliger747 said:
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.
Click to expand...
When did they head over to fly the aircraft, and when did they actually fly the aircraft. The reason I'm curious about this is that there was a proposal already submitted in 1942 for a light-weight fighter that could operate off CVE's...

Elvis said:
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.
Click to expand...
Form follows function.
 
fliger747 said:
All he says about the trip to England is early 1943. I think the lightweight fighter that ended up on the CVE's was the FM2.
Click to expand...
I could be wrong, but from what I remember reading (and that could be suspect), the light-weight fighter seemed to be something more like "we need to be getting smaller than the F6F/F7F with the same power", the FM-2 doesn't seem t fit that bill.
 
...but it was assigned to the CVE's.
Remember, the FM-2 started off as the notion of a higher performance F4F. and that would chide with your recollection of Grumman seeking higher performance in a "small" package.
 
Last edited:
Grumman had done two preliminary studies about putting the Wright R-2600 into the F4F airframe so they already had some idea of what it took to put a big engine in a small airframe.
The 1300-1350hp FM-2 needed a taller tail than the 1200hp F4F/FM-1.

The US carrier fleet had gone from mainly large fast ships when the F4F and F4U were started to an amazing collection of large carriers, medium carriers and small slow escort carriers (of which there were dozens ) so the need for different types of aircraft to operate from these different carriers changed.
 
Zipper730 said:
I hate to use wikipedia as a source but here it goes
Grumman F8F Bearcat - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
From WikI'

"and the G-58 has a number of design notes in common with the Fw 190 that the Hellcat did not, especially in the cowling and landing gear arrangements. However, no definitive evidence has been presented that these tests had a direct input to the G-58 design.

Please note the picture of the P & W test hack posted earlier. Which flew about 388mph in the fall of 1942, months before the Grumman guy/s Flew/saw the 190 and it's cowl/exhaust.
The Grumman plant was about 85-90 miles from the P & W main plant/Hqtrs. As to landing gear arrangement you have 4 basic ways to to do it. (aside from the F4F way) retract inward like a Hawker Hurricane, Fw 190, P-39, and host of others, retract outwards like the Spitfire, the Avenger and 109, retract rewards like the P-35, retract rewards and turn the wheel 90 degrees at the same time (Boeing patent) Like the P-36/P-40, the F6F the F4U and few others. given the odds why is it is a surprise that the F8F went with the inward style?
Please remember that with retracting landing gear (P-35 aside) one of the goals is to have enough wing thickness to house the wheel when retracted. Inward retracing gives the most room for the wheel.
 
Even Corsairs and Avengers were operated off the CVE's! Sometimes the catapult was used, but not necessarily. A line of Corsais could form up aft along the Starboard side, taxing, wings folded, allowing the use of the full length of the deck.

USN seemed to like the idea of Belt and Suspenders options and usually went several directions at once. No one has mentioned the spectacular F2G!
 
Shortround6 said:
Please note the picture of the P & W test hack posted earlier. Which flew about 388mph in the fall of 1942, months before the Grumman guy/s Flew/saw the 190 and it's cowl/exhaust.
Click to expand...
The XP-42 mod?
Wait, didn't the F8F have some kind of extending strut like Republic's P-47
 
Zipper730 said:
The XP-42 mod?
Wait, didn't the F8F have some kind of extending strut like Republic's P-47
Click to expand...

The XP 42 was a different airframe and series of experiments than the P&W test aircraft.

P-47 landing folds inward. Yes it does change length by about 9 in as it retracts and lowers.

On the F8F the landing actually folds over on itself. A short upper part of the strut folds outward as the lower strut folds inward. The F8F needed much longer landing gear than a 190 due to the much larger propeller. Both planes had inward folding landing gear. Given the number of planes that used inward folding landing gear that certainly doesn't mean Grumman copied the 190.
 

Thing with F8F was that it was not a pure low-wing A/C, that will add a few inches to the necessary length of the strut(s). Then, both F8F and Fw 190 wings' were with dihedral already from thw wing root, that again adds a few inches to the strut(s), unlike eg. Tempest.
 
When Hughes broke the world speed record with his H-1, I am sure many designers logged in the fact that the radial engine light aircraft could possibility be a high speed fighter and probably wanted to know how he did it. I would be surprised if Kurt Tank was not one of them. Just looking at the comparison of 1935 H-1 to the 1939 FW 190V-1 seems to imply that he was.

Wing span H-1 31' 9" FW 31'2"

Length H 27' FW 29'

Gross weight H 5492 lbs FW 6062 lbs (Note here-the BMW 139 in the FW weighed about 700 lbs more than the R-1535 in the H-1, so the airframes were practically the same weight)

HP H 1000 FW 1550

Max speed H 352 mph (with 24' wing span) FW 370 mph

In size and weight these planes were almost identical, only Tank had a more powerful engine available.

Do I believe Tank basically copied the H-1? No. But was he inspired by the H-1 that it could be done and alleviating competing with Messerschmitts for engines and fighter contracts? Most likely. Then he went about doing the same thing Hughes did, design the cleanest airframe possible that met his design goals.

Aircraft engineering formulas like physics is a constant. L/D, drag, lift, power available, etc., are all the same for every designer. Typically, how these formulas are applied are determined by the requirement specified. I find it hard to believe that Grumman had wanted to build the FW-190, or even the F8F, over the F6F. The Navy needed a long range powerful escort aircraft to support long range strike missions with maneuverability to provide carrier CAP. The F8F could only provide CAP. I am sure that if their requirement had been to make the best CAP aircraft and not strike escort, the F6F would have looked more like an F8F. The F6F was what the Navy needed when the Navy needed it. As for detailed design like landing gear, there are always options that require trade studies to determine the best option to fit the requirements specified.

Pictures are from wikipedia


 
he went about doing the same thing Hughes did, design the cleanest airframe possible that met his design goals.
Click to expand...

Pretty much sums it up. The same with Jiro Horikoshi and the A6M, as he has unfairly been directly accused of copying the Hughes Racer. It's been stated that Hawker copied the clean engine installation of the Fw 190 for the Centaurus in the Tempest II and Fury/Sea Fury, but again, there's no direct evidence of this, although the designers most likely examined the Fw 190 engine installation, as the Hawker Tornado Centaurus installation, from whence the Tempest II evolved was a bit of an abomination. The following on wikipedia is possibly close to accurate, rather than direct plagiarism:

"The engine installation owed much to examinations of a captured Focke-Wulf Fw 190, and was clean and effective."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

F8F-2 Bearcat Test Flight
Replies
5
Views
2K
GregP
USN "KILL" decals from WWII
Replies
2
Views
924
Davecww1
Time from 1st Aircraft to 1,000th Aircraft
Replies
15
Views
2K
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
FG 42, but designed around a non-German cartridge from day 1
2
Replies
20
Views
951
tomo pauk
FW190 a year earlier
Replies
17
Views
1K
z42
Z
Menu
Log in
Register