Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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
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.
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.
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?
Normal delivery check was to do a loop with feathered engines while grinning like a Cheshire cat at the photographer (joking).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).
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.Same thing happened to the Hornet. The prototype was nasty with an engine out.
View attachment 304625View attachment 304626
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.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.