Grumman F7F Tigercat vs. de Havilland Sea Hornet

[gjs238]

Which was the better choice for naval operations?

According to the Wikipedia article on the F7F:
In 1945, two Tigercats, serialled TT346 and TT349, were evaluated, but rejected, by the British Royal Navy, preferring a navalized version of the de Havilland Hornet.[11]

 

[wheelsup_cavu]

Considering British carriers were smaller than our fleet carriers I would think the size and weight of each aircraft played a part in the choice. Plus they chose a domestic plane over a foreign built one which would keep workers employed in a critical industry.

Hornet: Empty weight: 11,292 lb (5,122 kg)
Tigercat: Empty weight: 16,270 lb (7,380 kg)


Wheels

 

[Juha]

Hello wheels, the weights you gave are for Hornet F.1 (landplane), Sea Hornet F 20 was significantly heavier, Empty 6033 kg. And the Tigercat weight is for the 2-seat NF. What killed the Tigercat in the eyes of the RN was its single-engine handling in landing configuration, it was seen as unacceptable for carrier ops and at least early on the USN agreed.

 

[GregP]

The Tigercat handles great now. All the guys who fly them love them, single engine or not.

Here is the prototype and a later F7F Notice the difference in the vertical tails:

 

[Juha]

Hello Greg
did the USN used any other version that F7F-4N? IIRC all earlier versions were used only by the Marines.

 

[GregP]

Good question, Juha. As far as I know, only the F74F-4N was ever certified for carrier service and the rest were land-based. I KNOW many went to the Marines but am not really sure if the Navy operated any others as land-based aircraft. I can say I have never been able to locate any that were Navy-operated as land-based aircraft.

That doesn't preclude an odd example from being used for test or experimental purposes, but I have not been able to find a record of it to date.

I have seen 4 of them up close and personal and two were restored as Navy planes, one as a Marine aircraft, and the other one was painted overall black and was seen for a long time as "Big Bossman" when owned by Mike Brown. I think that one is now "Bad Kitty," but could be wrong there. I THINK Rod Lewis changed their names a few times when he bought them from Mike Brown. Altogether very cool airplanes.

 

[fastmongrel]

The Tigercat handles great now. All the guys who fly them love them, single engine or not.

Here is the prototype and a later F7F Notice the difference in the vertical tails:

View attachment 304598

Same thing happened to the Hornet. The prototype was nasty with an engine out.

 

[WJPearce]

was seen for a long time as "Big Bossman" when owned by Mike Brown. I think that one is now "Bad Kitty," but could be wrong there. I THINK Rod Lewis changed their names a few times when he bought them from Mike Brown. Altogether very cool airplanes.

Just to clarify, as it is confusing...
Big Bossman (BuNo 80503 / N805MB) was renamed by Lewis as El Jefe, then renamed again as La Patrona and painted silver.
Here Kitty Kitty (BuNo 80390 / N700F) is also owned by Lewis and retains the same name (last I heard).
Bad Kitty (BuNo 80483 / N6178C) is part of the Historic Flight Foundation in WA.

 

[buffnut453]

Hate to say this but I'd go with the Tigercat due to its air cooled engines - fewer nasty chemicals to store aboard the mother ship.

 

[GregP]

I believe you are correct about the Tigercat names. We see enough of them at the museum that they sort of run together. Which is pretty neat since I love the aircraft. It has animlal magnetism in person. Been in several, but havent flown in one yet. Hope to.

 

[gumbyk]

Hate to say this but I'd go with the Tigercat due to its air cooled engines - fewer nasty chemicals to store aboard the mother ship.

We're not going for that debate again, are we???

 

[Zipper730]

Okay, let's just break this down to basics: Which performed better with an engine dead? Has there been any criteria that is either hard facts or could be distilled into hard facts on both?

 

[swampyankee]

Okay, let's just break this down to basics: Which performed better with an engine dead? Has there been any criteria that is either hard facts or could be distilled into hard facts on both?

There are criteria for single-engined performance, such as engine-out climb and Vmc. Both could, no doubt, maintain some reasonable altitude on one engine at operational weights. These data should be in the aircraft manuals.

 

[Greyman]

Central Fighter Establishment re: Hornet I
The Hornet is extremely easy to fly on one engine and a normal left-hand circuit can be made on either engine without difficulty. Considerable changes of directional and longitudinal trim are necessary when flying on one engine and this amount varies in proportion to speed and power setting. Height can easily be maintained within the economical cruising settings and the aircraft will climb comfortably on one engine. In order to maintain height and circuit speed it is necessary to use +6 lbs. and 2,400 R.P.M. (wheels down and flaps open) and as the glide angle is steep the pilot must bear in mind the slow operation of the flaps when judging his approach.

 

[Skyediamonds]

Fastmongrel;
Did the pilot of the Sea Hornet actually feather BOTH engines & posed for the photographer?

 

[pbehn]

Fastmongrel;
Did the pilot of the Sea Hornet actually feather BOTH engines & posed for the photographer?

Normal delivery check was to do a loop with feathered engines while grinning like a Cheshire cat at the photographer (joking).

 

[Skyediamonds]

LoL... great response. Sort of like a British version of Bob Hoover. Thank you!

Gary

 

[Milosh]

Normal delivery check was to do a loop with feathered engines while grinning like a Cheshire cat at the photographer (joking).

There is a short video out there of a Mossie at Downsview doing single engine flight.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Same thing happened to the Hornet. The prototype was nasty with an engine out.

View attachment 304625View attachment 304626

I imagine landing any twin prop aircraft onto a carrier deck was a tricky affair, even in today's E-2 Hawkeyes with their much larger wing area.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Hate to say this but I'd go with the Tigercat due to its air cooled engines - fewer nasty chemicals to store aboard the mother ship.

Here's the Sea Hornet in HMS Indefatigable's notoriously low ceiled hangar. I'm not sure the Tigercat would fit, so points to the Sea Hornet as far as deployability.