J2M Raiden vs. F8F Bearcat

[wuzak]

The P-51H, with the same amount of internal fuel, with no restrictions on boost up to 90" w/WI and 150 octane fuel should trounce an F8F above 20,000 feet given good pilot skills - and should be a handful below that.

I shouldn't think that the P-51H would need 150PN fuel and ADI to trounce the F8F above 20,000ft, especially the F8F-1.

 

[GregP]

Maybe "trounch" in speed and rate of climb, due to excess HP available in the thrust-to-weight parameter. I'd think pitch and roll would favor the Bearcat about always.

 

[drgondog]

I haven't met a fighter pilot that flew the F4U, F8F and P-51 that didn't favor the F4U/F8F for sheer joy of flying. I haven't met one that flew the P-51B/D and H that didn't love the H most of all.

The Fighter Conference was a microcosm of the comparisons with the rankings of Best under 25000 with F8F, P-51D, F4U-1 at 30, 29 and 27%, respectively, while the F6F only got 2%

BTW - the representation from USN/USMC pilots nearly 2:1 to AAF pilots and 4:1 Vought/Grumman over NAA/Lockheed and Republic Test pilots

Pilot and operational situation separate, not the airplane

 

[grampi]

I remember reading about a naval aviator who flew Bearcats out of Pensacola, they used to mix it up with the local AF boys who were flying Mustangs. The Navy had no problem defeating the AF in every acm envelope, sort of like the Hornet against the F-35.

Those "mix ups" with AF pilots were probably against P-51D models...had they been the "H" models it would've been a different story...and as far as a Hornet taking on an F-35, that would be laughable...a Hornet can't even handle an F-16...

 

[grampi]

I shouldn't think that the P-51H would need 150PN fuel and ADI to trounce the F8F above 20,000ft, especially the F8F-1.

Above 20K feet even the P-51D would have it's way with a Bearcat...

 

[BiffF15]

and as far as a Hornet taking on an F-35, that would be laughable...a Hornet can't even handle an F-16...

Grampi,

The correct answer is it depends. What is the configuration of the fighters, what is the Block number of the Viper / Lot number of the Hornet, and what is the experience level of the combatants? If it were as easy as comparing specifications and numbers we wouldn't even bother to takeoff.

I have seen Eagles beat plenty of other aircraft types that had better performance. The victor is decided airborne.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Shortround6]

Hi YB

Above 20K feet even the P-51D would have it's way with a Bearcat...

Maybe, even at 30,000 ft the P-51D was only about 25mph faster the than Bearcat or about 6%, climb was better, about 1750fpm vrs about 1250fpm. At 20,000ft both planes climbed about the same. This is with both planes weighing within a few hundred pounds of each other.
The Mustang certainly has an edge, but perhaps not a dominate/sure thing edge. Bearcat was as fast (or faster?) than a 109G with a big supercharger although it id didn't climb as well at the higher altitudes.

I would be a little leery of post war match-ups between nearby squadrons unless we know that both units had the same engine restrictions, that is both were allowed to use WER in training flights in peacetime? Maybe both units could, maybe only one could or maybe both were limited to military power. Results are interesting but not definitive of war time capabilities.

 

[wuzak]

Hi YB

Maybe, even at 30,000 ft the P-51D was only about 25mph faster the than Bearcat or about 6%, climb was better, about 1750fpm vrs about 1250fpm. At 20,000ft both planes climbed about the same. This is with both planes weighing within a few hundred pounds of each other.
The Mustang certainly has an edge, but perhaps not a dominate/sure thing edge. Bearcat was as fast (or faster?) than a 109G with a big supercharger although it id didn't climb as well at the higher altitudes.

I would be a little leery of post war match-ups between nearby squadrons unless we know that both units had the same engine restrictions, that is both were allowed to use WER in training flights in peacetime? Maybe both units could, maybe only one could or maybe both were limited to military power. Results are interesting but not definitive of war time capabilities.

Which Bearcat? The F8F-2 was significantly better at altitude than the F8F-1.

 

[Shortround6]

Which Bearcat? The F8F-2 was significantly better at altitude than the F8F-1.

Figures are for the -1.
from here.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/F8F/F8F-1_Standard_Aircraft_Characteristics.pdf
converting knots to mph using 1.15mph per knot.

The -2 was good for 388knts (446mph) at 28,000ft. and climbing at 1600fpm at 30,000ft.
-2 numbers are calculations based off of -1 performance but are supposed to be the speed with bomb racks and sway braces. Clean adds 10-11 knots depending on altitude.

 

[CORSNING]

Well, I know I am a little late getting into this discussion. Although it hasn't been
a whole year yet and I have been a little busy in gathering and researching all
the information I can get my hands on.
After admitting all that crap I would like to take a shot at answering the original
question posed by spicmart.
" I wonder how the Raiden would have fared against the Bearcat if given the right
fuel and a competitive engine as it seemed to have similar mission profile and
similar dimensions."
For the Mitsubishi J2M3/5 I believe the TAIC Report No.105B should work just fine.
(For the Grumman F8F-1 I have used the Bureau of Aeronautics, Navy Department's
report dated 1 June 1945.) Figures for the F8F are in parenthesis.

Altitude / Speed / Climb
Meters / mph / fpm
S.L.........359 / 4835 (394 / 4570)
1,000...374 / 4940 (413 / 4220)
2,000...380 / 4650 (417 / 3705)
3,000...382 / 4270 (413 / 3290)
4,000...403 / 4320 (409 / 3275)
5,000...415 / 4350 (424 / 3115)
6,000...410 / 3760 (434 / 2665)
7,000...404 / 3160 (434 / 2220)
8,000...394 / 2440 (431 / 1755)
9,000...383 / 1850 (425 / 1325)
10,000...368 / 1150 (NG. /--875)
11,000...347 /-..600 (NG. /--575)
Full Throttle Height high s/c height: 417 mph./5,061 m. (434 mph./6,036.6 m.)
Climb Critical Altitude low s/c height: 4,990 fpm./1,311 m. (4,600 fpm./262 m.)
Range Clean / Max.: 670 ml. / 1,300 ml. (1,140 ml. / 1,830 ml.)
Armament 4 x 20 mm./ 200 rpg. (4 x 0.5 in./ 300 rpg.)
Engine: Mitsubishi Kasei 23: 1,870 hp./T.O., 1,940 hp./4,400 ft., 1,785 hp./
16,600 ft.
(Pratt & Whitney R-2800-34W: 2,380 hp./T.O., 2,400 hp./1,000 ft., 1,790 hp./
9,500 ft., 1,850 hp./15,500 ft.)
Combat Weight: 7,320 lb. (9,334 lb.)
Power Loading at max power & take-off weight: 3.773 (3.889) lb./hp.
Wing Loading at take-off weight: 33.92 (38.25) lb./sq. ft.
Service Ceiling: 11,340 m. / 37,200 ft. (11,857 m. / 38,900 ft.)

It appears the Raiden has the advantage of turning ability at speeds under 325 mph.
using its combat flaps. Above that (IMO) large propeller coupled with the raw power
probably gave the Bearcat the advantage in the turn.

 

[Glider]

For fighting the Japanese the RAF were planning to use the Tempest II which at low to medium altitude would be a challenge for anyone

 

[CORSNING]

Tempest II vs. Raiden? Sounds fun. Just as soon as I get a few minutes...

 

[swampyankee]

From what I remember the Bearcats held the climb to height record for a prop driven aircraft for many years. Add to that the lack of ace pilots in Japan and the high quality of US naval aces like David McCampbell just to name one of many, we'll that about says it all. I remember reading about a naval aviator who flew Bearcats out of Pensacola, they used to mix it up with the local AF boys who were flying Mustangs. The Navy had no problem defeating the AF in every acm envelope, sort of like the Hornet against the F-35. For my own amusement, Molders in a 109E vs Nishizawa in an A6M3. Now that would be interesting! my money would be on Nishizawa, hands down.

The Bearcat held the absolute brakes-off time-to-height record for many years. Part of the reason was that, light, if had a very short takeoff run, and high acceleration at low speeds. Jets, even those of the mid-1950s, couldn't get off the ground fast enough to make up for the slow start. The other piston fighters of its generation, like the Sea Fury and the P-51H, may have been able to match, or at least come close, to the same performance.

 

[drgondog]

The XP-51G was never timed in an official setting. The SL climb rate for the G was7500 fpm at 250mph climb out speed - with 20,000 feet in 3.3 minutes. As light as it was, with 2200 Hp at WEP, and 1900 Hp at T.O. power, there is no reason to suspect roll time didn't compare exceptionally well with the Bearcat. Chilton commented that he had to be careful not to advance throttle too rapidly and the airplane was off the ground at 30" MP.

 

[Peter Gunn]

The XP-51G was never timed in an official setting. The SL climb rate for the G was7500 fpm at 250mph climb out speed - with 20,000 feet in 3.3 minutes. As light as it was, with 2200 Hp at WEP, and 1900 Hp at T.O. power, there is no reason to suspect roll time didn't compare exceptionally well with the Bearcat. Chilton commented that he had to be careful not to advance throttle too rapidly and the airplane was off the ground at 30" MP.

Just... Wow. You weren't kidding about the G being a real scorcher.

 

[GregP]

Hi Bill,

Out of curiosity only, what is the reference for the XP-51G numbers. I don't believe I ever saw any real numbers on it other than top speed which, as we all know, is only ONE data point.

Cheers.

 

[Neil Stirling]

Hi Bill,

Out of curiosity only, what is the reference for the XP-51G numbers. I don't believe I ever saw any real numbers on it other than top speed which, as we all know, is only ONE data point.

Cheers.

Thanks to Mike Williams,http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/xp-51g-chart.jpg andhttp://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/xp51g-chart-2-2-44.jpg

Neil.

 

[CORSNING]

The XP-51G was never timed in an official setting. The SL climb rate for the G was7500 fpm at 250mph climb out speed - with 20,000 feet in 3.3 minutes. As light as it was, with 2200 Hp at WEP, and 1900 Hp at T.O. power, there is no reason to suspect roll time didn't compare exceptionally well with the Bearcat. Chilton commented that he had to be careful not to advance throttle too rapidly and the airplane was off the ground at 30" MP.

Bill,
Excellent information sir. Where did the 7,500 fpm./S.L. and 20,000 ft. time of 3.3 minutes come from?
The best figures I have in my files are 6,400 fpm./S.L. and 6,500 fpm. around 3,450 ft. using +25 lbs.
of boost (80.9"Hg.). Best time I can find to 20,000 ft. is 3.4 minutes.
Very inquisitive, Jeff

PS: Yea, what Neil said.

 

[GregP]

I would not be so quick to suggest the Hornet could be beaten by an F-35, within visual range. The F-35 should have avionics all over the Hornet, but the F-35's only superior aerodynamic feature might be the initial break. And I'm not too sure it could do an initial break any better than a Hornet, either. I'd like to see the match-up, though, with pilots of about equal experience and training in both planes.

I'd have cancelled the F-35, but it has never been my decision. At this time, it looks like we're stuck with them. So, we might a well learn to fight them as we best can. I hope they prove to be as good as everyone who likes them thinks they are. The eventual consequences if they aren't are not very much fun to think about.

 

[CORSNING]

I call "OFF TOPIC!"

Sorry Greg but you need a whack on the @$$ for that.