R Leonard
Staff Sergeant
Had to check the list, 85 total types/variants (49 different types including 36 variants of 16 of those types). He had no F2A time.
Goodyear F2G vs Grumman F8F Bearcat
- Thread starter Harry64
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
The other interesting remark my friend made was that even though they knew the Mig was coming they did not see it until it was on top of them. Whatever he tried to do, all he could hear on the radio was, "tracking Atoll, tracking Atoll, tracking guns, tracking guns."
GregP
Major
I think it is a very big mistake not to put a gun on an attack plane or a fighter. Sure, you give up some small payload, but you also give the pilot some self defence capability.
If teh A-6 HAD a gun, I wonder what it could have done given the premise taht the ordnance racks were empty. Without bombs I KNOW it could turn quite well.
If teh A-6 HAD a gun, I wonder what it could have done given the premise taht the ordnance racks were empty. Without bombs I KNOW it could turn quite well.
Last edited:
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
They had been told that in a hard turn at 250 knots the Mig could not follow as it would stall out. Wrong! But a gun would certainly have given the A6 some hope one would think.
oldcrowcv63
Tech Sergeant
yep, clean it was surprisingly agile with a pretty small turn radius. If it had been primarily a day bomber, a gun might have made more sense. The A-1, A-4 and A-7 all had guns. However, the A-6 was designed to attack at night or in weather that was as close as possible to zero-zero conditions. Not much else flying then so a gun seemed extraneous. Of course the realities of war typically mean, if it can carry ordnance, it's going to be used to move mud and it did indeed move a lot of it in the daylight.
GregP
Major
The MiG-21 has a lot of good points and a lot of bad olnes, too.
It is agile but the pilot has very poor visibility through the windscreen and LARGE gunsight. It is reasonably fast but has NO range at all unless it carries external fuel tanks, and that limits the missile armament. Still, in competent hands, it is a dangerous opponent.
All in all, it is a pretty decent little air superiority fighter, particularly when fitted with the Israeli avionics upgrades.
It is agile but the pilot has very poor visibility through the windscreen and LARGE gunsight. It is reasonably fast but has NO range at all unless it carries external fuel tanks, and that limits the missile armament. Still, in competent hands, it is a dangerous opponent.
All in all, it is a pretty decent little air superiority fighter, particularly when fitted with the Israeli avionics upgrades.
Last edited:
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
I guess a less performing aircraft would be acceptable if he was going to attack anything inside the USA?
When I was working the on the B-2, the two AF reps to my Controls and Displays committee were FB-111 crewmen, a pilot and an Weapons Systems Operator (WSO). The FB-111 was a two man crew as the proposed B-2 was and is. I was surprised to learn that the only bomber assigned to downtown Moscow, and other high value targets, was the FB-111. This was in the early 80s. I think the F-111 was is one of the more unappreciated aircraft. The WSO community was quite upset when the WSO position, now called mission commander, was assigned to a pilot rating.
oldcrowcv63
Tech Sergeant
It's interesting how the two cultures: WSOs and NFOs have fared in their respective services. I have been told by USAF pilots and WSOs that there is some amount of bias against WSOs or any non-pilot flying officer in the USAF, whereas in the USN command opportunities are relatively abundant and there is a more collegial relationship between the two. Of course there are exceptions. I was once told by an A-7 pilot that he'd trade any NFO for an equal weight in JP-5 any day of the week.
I have always wondered whether the apparent difference in status may have something to do with the historical context of each: IIUC the USAAC, USAAF and USAF originally selected their non-flying officer billets from those that failed flight training, so there was perhaps some stigma attached to them. In the USN, the NFO has a long history of both flight experience and a separate designation path beginning with the Naval Aviation Oberver in the earliest days of powered flight. That evolved slowly into the completely independent training and designation pathway for non-pilot specialists. In fact the original name of the Pensacola based training squadron through which modern NFOs passed on their way to their wings was: Basic Naval Aviation Observer (BNAO) School until about 1968. Affectionately referred to as Banana School leading naval aviators to joke about feeding their NFOs a banana to get him to do his job (like a trained monkey). I am not sure what was done in WW2 and would be surprised if the ranks of navigators and bombardiers weren't filled by those who flunked pilot training, however AFAIK the existence of a separate path to non-pilot "wings" was continued.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #89
Harry64
Airman
Krieghund, do you have any charts from the Republic XP-72, as he used also the R-4360 as the F2G. Maybe interesting to compare the two performance datas.
Harry
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
There was certainly a lot of banter in the cockpit. I have heard the reverse banana comment about pilots. In general, I don't know. I have known Navs who have washed out of pilot training, one for air sickness????, but I do know that the three senior officers in our pilot training class were previous navs/wsos so I guess not all navs came from wash-outs.
GregP
Major
I can't understand who would give a care about the F2G Corsair. There were only 10 made and they didn't do anything. The F2G was nothing.
They made around 1,265 Bearcats and they were operationl with several air forces.
They made around 1,265 Bearcats and they were operationl with several air forces.
Shortround6
Major General
The F2G won the Cleveland air races a couple of times?
People are fascinated by some German planes that did nothing, why not some equal time for allied planes?
People are fascinated by some German planes that did nothing, why not some equal time for allied planes?
GregP
Major
OK Shortround6 ... fair enough.
Then I'll take a Boeing F8B.
They only made 3, but it was a wonder at a time when pistons were fading and jets were being loved without consideration of their actual capabilities.
Then I'll take a Boeing F8B.
They only made 3, but it was a wonder at a time when pistons were fading and jets were being loved without consideration of their actual capabilities.
Last edited:
The claim of a stock Bearcat going from a dead stop to 10000 ft in anywhere close to 1.5 mins is not plausable. Rare Bear did it in 91 seconds, but it's considerably lighter than a stocker, and it did it with a Curtis Wright 3350 with somewhere between 3000 and 4000 HP...the only other version that came close to this was the G-58A (Gulfhawk 4) which had a stock R-2800, but it was almost 3000 lbs lighter than a stock Bearcat, and would do it in 98 seconds. Claiming a stocker could do it as fast as claimed just doesn't jive with the numbers....
Not even close to a Bearcat. The F8B's climb rate was only 2800 fpm...or about half that of the Bearcat...
GregP
Major
grampi,
The F8B wasn't a dedicated fighter. The 2,800 fpm is with a full load of stores that rivaled a Skyradier. When it was empty in fighter mode, it was quite agile and powerful.
The F8B wasn't a dedicated fighter. The 2,800 fpm is with a full load of stores that rivaled a Skyradier. When it was empty in fighter mode, it was quite agile and powerful.
There's no way it could hang with a Bearcat....
GregP
Major
Sure it could. All it had to do was fly for 400 miles and the Bearcat would be out of fuel.
That would leave the F8B with only another 2,000+ miles of range to do something with the 6,400 pounds of bombs it was carrying.
That would leave the F8B with only another 2,000+ miles of range to do something with the 6,400 pounds of bombs it was carrying.
silence
Senior Airman
First I'd ever heard of the F8B. My God! That thing was a beast! Looks like it could give birth to a P-47 - or four Spitfires.
- Status
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
