F8F Bearcat derived from FW190?

[SaparotRob]

It works this time!

 

[pbehn]

Every allied aircraft was derived from a Fokker or a Focke or some other miss spelling.

 

[blueskies]

The Bearcats initial design was very similar to final, and apparently done before Grumman had the chance to look at a 190 up close.

The Conception of the F8F Bearcat

The interweb would have you believe that the F8F Bearcat resulted from a Grumman evaluation of the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 accomplished in early 1...

thanlont.blogspot.com

Furthermore just what did Grumman allegedly copy? The funny wing twist? Some of the structural quirks? The cooling/cowling?

 

[GrauGeist]

If anything, the F8F's design was influenced by US Navy veteran pilot's input.

 

[Shortround6]

Every allied aircraft was derived from a Fokker or a Focke or some other miss spelling.

It's true, I read it on the internet!

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

If anything, the F8F's design was influenced by US Navy veteran pilot's input.

I bet complaints about poor climb got some desks pounded.

 

[R Leonard]

Properly prepared, on a good day, with good pilots, the F8F climb to time could indeed be remarkable.

November 22, 1946 . . . Cleveland Air Show . . . Operation Pogostick . . . two F8F-1 from TacTest at the NAS Patuxent NATC are prepared for climbs to 10000 feet. Both aircraft have the WEP safety interlock bypassed allowing WEP with wheels down, something standard configuration does not allow. Both aircraft are otherwise standard, armed, but no ammo, with about 50% fuel. Each is equipped with what was called a "theater" installed behind the pilot's seat. This was a small instrument board, about one-foot square, that had as it's most important feature a movie camera that recorded time, altitude, and various goings on in the cockpit. The camera was actuated thusly: the pilot taxied the airplane to his starting point and flipped a switch to activate the camera. At that point, when the pilot releases his brakes, another switch is automatically thrown and the camera starts recording events.

In this particular instance, the cameras were calibrated by National Aeronautics Association for the climb attempts. By reviewing the film it became relatively academic to determine the time take to reach 10000 feet or 3000 meters, which ever you wanted to look at.

First to go was CDR Bill Leonard, Projects Director at TacTest, from a dead stop to 10K feet in 100.0 seconds, including a 150 foot take off run. LCDR Butch Davenport, F8F Projects Officer at TacTest, came along about 30 minutes later and set the next new record of 97.8 seconds, including a 115 foot take off run. Leonard's take off was into an estimated 30 knot head wind, by the time Davenport took off the head wind was over 40 knots. This higher wind speed helped to reduce Davenport's time on the ground. I have never seen Davenport's pilot's log book, but I have Leonard's in my possession. It shows his run and earlier practice runs made at TacTest in preparation.

Being once challenged in my reporting of this event I once took, in December 2003, the extra step of contacting the NAA, the result being this from Art Greenfield, then, Director, Contest and Records, National Aeronautic Association:

"It's difficult to determine from the file, but the U.S. national record in 1946 was either 'Fastest Climb to 10,000 Feet,' or 'Time to Climb 3,000 Meters.' The switch from feet to meters occurred around that time, presumably to gain acceptance from the international community at FAI.

"In any event, both performances were calculated and the time to 10,000 feet was 97.8 seconds; the time to 3,000 meters (9,843 feet) was 96.1 seconds.

"The record I quoted was set by LCDR M.W. Davenport in a Bearcat on November 22, 1946, in Cleveland."

It is too bad that the international climb-to-time record category was not established until 1950; after first being proposed for inclusion by the US's National Aeronautic Association at the June 1950 Fédération Aéronautique Internationale General Conference. According to Thierry Montigneaux, of the FAI, "The first mention of a 'time to climb' world record in our books was for a flight made by a British pilot onboard a Gloster Meteor on 31 August 1951. No performance set in 1946 could therefore have qualified as an official 'world' record, as this category of record did not exist then." The pilot of the Meteor was Flt Lt Richard B Prickett; his time to 3000 meters was 75.5 seconds.

So, in 1946 there was no "World Record" class for climb to time.

The rapid climb to altitude was the F8F's bread and butter. The plane was to have been one of the solutions to the kamikaze problem ... rapid climbs capability, firepower, speed, and more (better) maneuverability than the F6F or F4U.

 

[drgondog]

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.

edited

 

[Barrett]

I was present when Bob Hall related his experience with the FW 190 ref. the F8F. He spoke at a meeting of the American Fighter Aces Assn.

 

[Barrett]

Properly prepared, on a good day, with good pilots, the F8F climb to time could indeed be remarkable.

November 22, 1946 . . . Cleveland Air Show . . . Operation Pogostick . . . two F8F-1 from TacTest at the NAS Patuxent NATC are prepared for climbs to 10000 feet. Both aircraft have the WEP safety interlock bypassed allowing WEP with wheels down, something standard configuration does not allow. Both aircraft are otherwise standard, armed, but no ammo, with about 50% fuel. Each is equipped with what was called a "theater" installed behind the pilot's seat. This was a small instrument board, about one-foot square, that had as it's most important feature a movie camera that recorded time, altitude, and various goings on in the cockpit. The camera was actuated thusly: the pilot taxied the airplane to his starting point and flipped a switch to activate the camera. At that point, when the pilot releases his brakes, another switch is automatically thrown and the camera starts recording events.

In this particular instance, the cameras were calibrated by National Aeronautics Association for the climb attempts. By reviewing the film it became relatively academic to determine the time take to reach 10000 feet or 3000 meters, which ever you wanted to look at.

First to go was CDR Bill Leonard, Projects Director at TacTest, from a dead stop to 10K feet in 100.0 seconds, including a 150 foot take off run. LCDR Butch Davenport, F8F Projects Officer at TacTest, came along about 30 minutes later and set the next new record of 97.8 seconds, including a 115 foot take off run. Leonard's take off was into an estimated 30 knot head wind, by the time Davenport took off the head wind was over 40 knots. This higher wind speed helped to reduce Davenport's time on the ground. I have never seen Davenport's pilot's log book, but I have Leonard's in my possession. It shows his run and earlier practice runs made at TacTest in preparation.

Being once challenged in my reporting of this event I once took, in December 2003, the extra step of contacting the NAA, the result being this from Art Greenfield, then, Director, Contest and Records, National Aeronautic Association:



It is too bad that the international climb-to-time record category was not established until 1950; after first being proposed for inclusion by the US's National Aeronautic Association at the June 1950 Fédération Aéronautique Internationale General Conference. According to Thierry Montigneaux, of the FAI, "The first mention of a 'time to climb' world record in our books was for a flight made by a British pilot onboard a Gloster Meteor on 31 August 1951. No performance set in 1946 could therefore have qualified as an official 'world' record, as this category of record did not exist then." The pilot of the Meteor was Flt Lt Richard B Prickett; his time to 3000 meters was 75.5 seconds.

So, in 1946 there was no "World Record" class for climb to time.

The rapid climb to altitude was the F8F's bread and butter. The plane was to have been one of the solutions to the kamikaze problem ... rapid climbs capability, firepower, speed, and more (better) maneuverability than the F6F or F4U.

View attachment 742690View attachment 742691

Excellent insight Rich, as always.
I knew Butch Davenport well, via Marion Carl's Patuxent River guys. AS I RECALL (Boomer memory alert) Butch's flight was the next day with a temperature advantage. I had his daughter's contact info a few years ago but no reply.

 

[drgondog]

I have heard of it before.
How true it is something else.

The company history is unlikely to credit a foreign design as being the basis (or even inspiration) for one of their major aircraft, so that may not be a good avenue to pursue. Official line is that Roy Grumman was becoming worried that the twin engine designs they were working on (like the F7F) were too big for the majority of the navies carriers and would have a limited market. End of July 1943 he sent an outline to his chief engineer, Bill Schwendler, proposing a new lighter fighter.
I don't know when in 1943 Robert Hall is supposed to have flown the 190.

Aside from a few features in the the engine installation I am not sure what the Fw 190 and F8F have in common.
I would note that such features as the sliding bubble canopy were becoming quite common in US fighter designs at this time (even if taking a while to show up in production) so it takes more than few superficial items to really back up this story.

Both airframes sported NACA 230xx airfoils but the F8F was 'fatter'.

Dimensionally they were close but the primary differences IMO were determined by the F8F primary missions - Carrier ops, Jeep Carrier suitable, climb like hell. Ergo, more power, more wing area, fatter wing in same family (NACA 23018 vs 23015.5) with higher CLmax (and more drag) -combined with huge Fin for low speed control authority.

If Grumman adopted same scheme as FW 190 with leading edge twist ending at 80% span, that would have gotten my attention but F8F didn't (wisely)

Grumman template more likely was to build a super F4F from scratch, than copy a FW 190 or skinny down F6F.

 

[GregP]

I was present when Bob Hall related his experience with the FW 190 ref. the F8F. He spoke at a meeting of the American Fighter Aces Assn.

Hi Barrett.

Since you were present when Bob Hall spoke, what did he say? How about a short summary?

Thanks, and cheers!

 

[pinehilljoe]

The F8F looks like Mr Grumman asked his designers to build the smallest airframe around the biggest engine with heritage from the F6F.

 

[Elvis]

The F8F looks like Mr Grumman asked his designers to build the smallest airframe around the biggest engine with heritage from the F6F.

This is the way I've always understood the reason for the F8F to exist.
It was, basically, the F6F put on a diet, creating, as Joe stated so eliquently...The smallest airframe around the largest engine.
You could say the same for the FM-2, which was based on the experimental F4F-8. Again, reengineered to create a smaller, lighter airframe around a larger, more powerful engine.
...and climb benefitted there, as well (2300 vs. 3650).
You could even take this "philosophy" all the way back to the BF-109, which was the 108, already a light airframe, mated with a bigger engine.
It's like some people say, "what was the auto industry thinking?!", when contemplating the muscle cars of the 1960's...look at the aircraft industry. They've been doing it for YEARS.

 

[Snautzer01]

It's like some people say, "what was the auto industry thinking?

I suggest you look up 1940 race cars. You will find that for racing the always meted the most powerfull en light engine a a frame as light they deared to make
I think its the other way around. Look at planes round 1935 not much different then those in the great war

 

[tomo pauk]

This is the way I've always understood the reason for the F8F to exist.
It was, basically, the F6F put on a diet, creating, as Joe stated so eliquently...The smallest airframe around the largest engine.
You could say the same for the FM-2, which was based on the experimental F4F-8. Again, reengineered to create a smaller, lighter airframe around a larger, more powerful engine.
...and climb benefitted there, as well (2300 vs. 3650).

Good call on the F8F.
The FM-2 was not smaller than the F4F, and the R-1820 engine it used was not larger than the R-1830. Part of the lightness came from reduction of guns, from 6 to 4. Granted, the R-1820 version used on the FM-2 was making a bit better power than the R-1830s used on the F4F.

edit: BTW - let's debunk a piece of propaganda from everyone's favorite Kurt:
The Messerschmitt 109 [sic] and the British Spitfire, the two fastest fighters in the world at the time we began work on the Fw 190, could both be summed up as a very large engine on the front of the smallest possible airframe; in each case armament had been added almost as an afterthought.

This is exactly how the Fw 190 came about - install a very large engine on the front of the smallest possible airframe, the BMW 139 being about twice the weight and power of the Jumo 210 or Kestrel (engines that propelled the 1st Bf 109s) on a fighter whose wing was smaller than what 109 had.
Initial Fw 190 concepts didn't featured some great firepower, sometimes even limiting to two LMGs and two HMGs, by what time Spitfire was firmly in 8 LMG land, and Bf 109 was flying with cannons installed.

 

[NevadaK]

It's an example of convergent evolution. Same principle that led to the similarity between the F8F and the N1K2.

 

[pbehn]

It's an example of convergent evolution. Same principle that led to the similarity between the F8F and the N1K2.

The biggest visual difference between a Bearcat and a Sea Fury is the paint job. Underneath the paint job they have nothing in common.

 

[GregP]

The biggest visual difference between a Bearcat and a Sea Fury is the paint job. Underneath the paint job they have nothing in common.

I think the niggest difference is size. The Bearcat is small; the Sea Fury is large.

But, it's all in the eye of the beholder ...

 

[GrauGeist]

To be honest, the Sea Fury looks more like a KI-100.