Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
For comparison between single stage and 2 stage engine aircraft:
Spitfire XII: 392mph @ 24,000ft
Spitfire XIV prototype (Mk VIIIG): 440mph @ 24,000ft, 421mph @ 39,000ft.
The F8F-2 was decidedly post war. The F8F-1 only just made it into service before the end of WW2, but didn't see action.
The F8F-1 had a single stage supercharger.
Hi Tomo Pauk,
Not sure where you got the idea that the bearcat was a 20,000 foot and under aircraft, but that turns out not to be the case. The F8F-2 had a service ceiling of 40,800 feet and the supercharger was a variable speed hydraulic drive 2-stage centrifugal unit (-30W engine).
Even the -10W was a 2-stage unit. If featured carburetor injection and a low-voltage distributor with remote coils near the spark plugs and was very much at home in the mid 30,000 feet arena. Performance was sparking and max speed was 455 mph ... about average for late war, but then again, nothing else wanted to catch it anyway since the 4 guns were 20 mm cannons in all but the very early F8F's and it was going to out turn them when they arrived.
As for German planes being good at altitude - we all know that Germans were pushing for 2 stage engines from 1944, that can suggest they did not consider current planes to be that good at altitude.
Er..so did the F8F-2 (the "E Series" R-2800-32W was the two-stage "Sidewinder" version used in the F4U-5
They were just as good as the typical Allied planes of the time - P-51 or Spitfire - at the time at altitude, which is not surprise, since their high alt single stage DB engines were practically identical to the two stage Merlin in altitude power...
Altitude performance is not a direct function of wheter the supercharger being single stage or two stage - its a function of supercharger capacity. Russian and German engines were single stage both, but the former absolutely sucked at altitude (with few notable exception - see Mikulin series).
Things like the two stage Jumo 213E or the DB 605L, 603L/N series were pretty much an overkill for altitude performance, driven by overhyped concerns of B-29s.
Excellent chart. There is one caveat here we must be aware of in comparing these test and that is fuel weight at test. Take for instance the P-51H compared to the Spitfire 22. Tested fuel quantity of the P-51H was 205 gallons. Max fuel of the Spitfire is 120 gallons or about 500 lbs less. Going into the charts, the P-51H with the same fuel weight as the Spitfire would climb at about 5600 ft/min compared to the Spitfires 5100 ft/min. Normalizing performance is often quite difficult. The two engined Hornet would require more fuel to do the same mission as the P-51 or Spitfire so tested fuel quantity would have to be adjusted to be equal. So true is the more powerful and thirsty radial engines of the P-47, F8F, F4U, and Tempest II.Something I put together last year.
Although the charts are headed 1946 fighters all the aircraft had flown by April 1945.
The F8F-1 was cleared (When?) for 70"hg, however, I cant find reliable performance figures and I am not confident estimating it.
During 1946 or 47 the -4 Corsair (Some not many) was fitted with the 42W engine and this produced around 2,780hp.
The Hornets performance is estimated from performance at +20lbs boost.
All aircraft clean no racks.
Fire Power from Flying Guns World War II by G.Williams and E. Gustin.
Neil.
Greg,
It is a touch harsh comparing a 1947 development of an aircraft with one whose development was cut off in 1945.
Other aircraft, such as the Spitfire, had developments that weren't put into production (100 series Griffons with 3 speed superchargers and contra props).
All of the technology in the F8F-2 was essentially late-WW2; the E Series R-2800 was designed, built and had passed its 500 hour test by May 1945, while design of the two-stage -32W started in March 1945. (White, page 199-200) Okay, it's a fine line, but the three-stage Griffon was more of a post-WW2 development than the engine fitted in the F8F-2.
Hi Wuzak,
I thought that was the whole purpose of the thread, to compere the late Fw 190 designes with the last-gen piston fighters that were flown just before jets took over. If not, then I missed the intent of the comparison.
You may very well be right.
OK, we thought differently. maybe the autor of the thread can elucidate ... meanwhile, we need a beer. A Spitfire Ale.
The problem with comparing the Ta 152C with the F8F-2 is that there may have been more development to come in the two intervening years, especially with regards to engine performance.
In any case Germany had largely abandoned "Otto" engined aircraft development (as in new aircraft) before the end of the war, preferring to pursue jet aircraft.