Ta152-H1 uber-fighter?

[lesofprimus]

The Sea Fury was designed to fight a different type of fighter than the Bearcat.... The Bearcat was a much more agile and powerful fighter....

And at altitude, I agree LG... The -152H was, in the hands of an Ace, extremely deadly over 35,000 feet...

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

interestingly the sea fury is the only FAA plane apart from the sea harrier F.1 to have shot down an enemy aircraft since the close of WWII...........

 

[Anonymous]

i'd put my money on the sea fury................

You'd loose your money. The Bearcat could easily turn inside the SeaFury. It could out climb it, out roll it, and out accelerate it. The only advantage the SeaFury would have would be a slight top speed advantage at some altitudes.

The Bearcat is almost universally considered the ultimate in prop interceptor aircraft. BTW: it borrowed heavily from the FW190 design.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[evangilder]

I disagree that it borrowed from the FW-190. It was often called the "Hellcat Lite" and the design was built around the Pratt Whitney R-2800-34 radial engine. I have never seen any reference to any FW-190 influence of this design.

 

[Nonskimmer]

The SeaFury most certainly borrowed from the FW-190, though.

 

[evangilder]

That is possible, I don't know with the SeaFury, but I do know about the Bearcat.

 

[Lightning Guy]

Evan is right. The Bearcat was much closer in basic design to the Hellcat than to the Fw-190 (and even that similarity wasn't THAT strong).

I also think RG is right. In the majority of combat situations, the F8F would hold all the cards over the Sea Fury.

 

[plan_D]

The Bearcat record was beaten by the EE Lightning actually. It didn't take any time at all to get going and it could climb vertically off the runway. The US record was probably beaten by a F-16, the world record by the Lightning.

 

[Anonymous]

The Bearcat record was beaten by the EE Lightning actually. It didn't take any time at all to get going and it could climb vertically off the runway. The US record was probably beaten by a F-16, the world record by the Lightning.

Well, 30 years ended in the 70's. You have something that shows the EE Lightning could make 10,000 feet in less than 91 seconds from brake off? The F-15 could go vertical, but could not beat that time till the latest versions.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Anonymous]

Grumman test pilot Bob Hall flew and studied (along with a Grumman engineering team) a captured FW-190 in England. They then took one home to study it further.

The Grumman F8F Bearcat was the company's final piston engined fighter aircraft. Designed for the interceptor fighter role, the design team's aim was to create the smallest, lightest fighter that could fit around the Pratt Whitney Double Wasp engine (carried over from the F6F Hellcat) and the armament of four 20mm cannon. Compared to its predecessor, the Bearcat was 20% lighter, had a 30% better rate of climb, and was 50 mph (80 km/h) faster. In comparison with the Vought F4U Corsair, the Bearcat was marginally slower but was much more heavily armed {when fitted with cannon}, more manuverable and climbed faster. Many features of its design were inspired by a captured Focke-Wulf Fw 190 fighter that had been handed over to the Grumman facilities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F8F_Bearcat

Grumman, however, favored a lighter and more maneuverable design, more like the German Focke Wulf 190 -- a captured example having been flown by Grumman test pilot Bob Hall in England. The resulting Grumman design, the XF8F-1, weighed only 7,017 pounds empty and was sometimes described as the smallest airframe built around the most powerful, fully developed engine, a real "hot-rod."
http://nasaui.ited.uidaho.edu/nasaspark/safety/f8f/f8fdev.html

The design probably did have more in common with the Hellcat, it used pretty much the same wing (though a little thinner), but it also borrowed heavily from the 190A, especially when it came to control surface design and cockpit ergonomics.

The F4U-4 would be a very tough matchup for the SeaFury. The F8F could beat them both.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i've seen a sea fury in flight and let me tell you it's no mellon...............

 

[Anonymous]

i've seen a sea fury in flight and let me tell you it's no mellon...............

Not saying it was. However, it is very hard to beat a fighter that out turns, out rolls, out accelerates, outclimbs you, has better visability, and has comparable speed. Only in flat out speed does the Tempest II (SeaFury) have a slight advantage, and even that is marginal and of questionable use except for escaping combat.

The SeaFury was an excellent design (when the many problems with the Centaraus engine were finally overcome), but the Bearcat was really the ultimate prop interceptor. It was a no-compromise design. It is indicative of what many US fighters might have been if long-range had not been an essential part of their specification.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

after seeing a sea fury in flight i'm still sticking by my guns...........

 

[Nonskimmer]

after seeing a sea fury in flight i'm still sticking by my guns...........

It is impressive to watch! 8)
Never seen the Bearcat in flight, but I'd love to!

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i was lucky enough to see the FAA's now flying example (sea fury that is)..............

 

[evangilder]

That is the first mention that I have heard of about the FW-190 influence on the Bearcat, and I have been working around one for 4 years. While I can see some of it, I see more of a follow on to the Wildcat and the Hellcat. But I sit corrected.

I have seen both the SeaFury and the Bearcat fly on several occasions and the Bearcat has the manueverability and the climb rate that would put it at a great advantage. Due to it's size and weight, the SeaFury would probably have the edge diving. Range was always a factor with the Bearcat as I am all too aware of. But in an equal pilot skill matchup, I would confidently put money on the Bearcat.

 

[Erich]

hope this works and probably too small. The painting of the Geschwader stab/JG 301 before the white stipe on the prop. Great painting sitting above my PC work desk

 

[plan_D]

I can't find a source yet but you obviously have not seen a EE Lightning starting up. From the scramble call to the Lightning pulling off the runway, it's about 30 seconds. That includes time it takes for the man to run out and get in the thing. If you sat a man in a Lightning, told him to start it, it would take about 15 seconds to have his engines going and he could be hurtling down the run way. You know Lightnings don't have to wait for avionics to start up? Engine on, heated and he's off and pulling up vertically off the run way. And they could carry on going vertically to 10,000 feet and still gain speed.

 

[Anonymous]

hope this works and probably too small. The painting of the Geschwader stab/JG 301 before the white stipe on the prop. Great painting sitting above my PC work desk

That's the Ta152 paint job we have in Fighter Ace!

In the game, it's a good plane up high, but most combat unrealistically occures below 10,000 feet, where the Tempests, Yaks, and F4U-4's have the edge.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Erich]

interesting, they should take the game up several levels to 30,000 feet and then see what happens............ ?

E ~