Thoughts about the F7F Tigercat.

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The F4U-4 has a two stage supercharger. It's engine has 1800hp at 23,000ft (no ram) and can still pull 1800 hp at 25,500ft in level flight with ram. The F7Fs used single stage superchargers. The -1 and -2 F7Fs used R-2800-22 engines that hada Military power of 1600hp at 16,000ft (no ram). the -3 version had the R-2800-34 engine with 1700hp at 16,000ft. (no ram)

These are military ratings and do not include water injection which ALL these engines were fitted with.

The engines in the F7F-12 may be down to around 1320hp at 23,000ft. Granted there are two but there does come an altitude at which the F4U-4 does out climb the the F7F by several hundred fpm. While trying to climb straight away doesn't work well having a better rate of climb means the ability to better maintain height in a turn. Either pull a bit tighter turn while maintaining height or if both planes are pulling tight turns and both are loosing altitude the one with the "better climb rate" will loose less altitude per second it is in the turn. If the F4U-4 goes down below 20,000ft he is giving up this advantage.
 
The F4U-4 has a two stage supercharger. It's engine has 1800hp at 23,000ft (no ram) and can still pull 1800 hp at 25,500ft in level flight with ram. The F7Fs used single stage superchargers. The -1 and -2 F7Fs used R-2800-22 engines that hada Military power of 1600hp at 16,000ft (no ram). the -3 version had the R-2800-34 engine with 1700hp at 16,000ft. (no ram)

These are military ratings and do not include water injection which ALL these engines were fitted with.

The engines in the F7F-12 may be down to around 1320hp at 23,000ft. Granted there are two but there does come an altitude at which the F4U-4 does out climb the the F7F by several hundred fpm. While trying to climb straight away doesn't work well having a better rate of climb means the ability to better maintain height in a turn. Either pull a bit tighter turn while maintaining height or if both planes are pulling tight turns and both are loosing altitude the one with the "better climb rate" will loose less altitude per second it is in the turn. If the F4U-4 goes down below 20,000ft he is giving up this advantage.

I didn't realize the supercharger difference between the 2 aircraft. Thank you for the info.

Would you like to guess the outcome at low level? Say 10,000 feet or below?
 
Hi pinsog,

If I were doing a press interview, Steve would no doubt give a long explanation. However, I work for him and his answers are usually short and to the point since he is so busy. I suppose we'll see.

He'll be at Reno until after next weekend and then back honme, hopefully with another family Nation al Championship ... again, we'll see. There are some FAST planes there again this year. Nobody is cutting up entire warbirds into racers anymore, so the contenders are well known.

I doubt if Shockwave will ever fly. It is a new-build fuselage that would have T-2 Buckeye wings and an R-3350, but it may never be completed. If this is the swan song for the races, it for sure will never be finished. I suppose only time will tell.
 
Hi pinsog,

If I were doing a press interview, Steve would no doubt give a long explanation. However, I work for him and his answers are usually short and to the point since he is so busy. I suppose we'll see.

He'll be at Reno until after next weekend and then back honme, hopefully with another family Nation al Championship ... again, we'll see. There are some FAST planes there again this year. Nobody is cutting up entire warbirds into racers anymore, so the contenders are well known.

I doubt if Shockwave will ever fly. It is a new-build fuselage that would have T-2 Buckeye wings and an R-3350, but it may never be completed. If this is the swan song for the races, it for sure will never be finished. I suppose only time will tell.

Thank you GregP. Good luck at the races and good luck with my question!
 
How far apart are the right and left outboard cannon from each other? It does not seem that far at all. It looks like less than a persons outstretched arms.
 
@gregP, where is your so loved bubble canopy at the Tigercat? sorry could not resist!
cimmex
 
The 20mm guns and ammo boxes are mounted pretty far back in the wing, just forward of the flaps. Distance from the CG may not be quite as great as as the .50 cal guns but being behind the CG helps balance weight taken out in front of the CG.

Without a load plan that is only guessing.
 
Checked out the Tigercat.

The fuselage is about 4 feet wide. The inside 20 mm cannon is about 3 inches from the edge of the wing and the second 20 mm on the same side is about another 3 - 3.5 inches to the side of the first one.

So, the total offset from centerline for the 20 mm cannons is about 2.25 - 2.4 feet for the inside cannon and anotehr 3 - 3.5 inches for the ourtside cannon. Pretty darned close to CL! Depending on how far offset the win attach point are it might be that number or up to another 2 - 3 inches. If one that is complete visits anytime soon, maybe I can get a measurement.

OK, took off the cover and measured just behind the pilot seat bulkhead. The fuselage is 41 inches wide plus two thicknesses of .050 Aluminum, so it's even less than 4 feet wide ... probably about as wide as a Super Cub!
 
Last edited:
I am guessing they would be running these guns parallel as far as windage goes? 8 guns in what is about a 5 foot path does not sound like it needs to converge to me. The way it is sounds like it increases the chances of hitting something vital. Perfect aim and 4 .50s are hitting with 20mm hitting near the aiming point. I couple of feet off and you have a pair of 20mm hitting where you you intended to aim. Sounds like there will be cases when all guns are hitting a target.
 
Talked with Steve Hinton about the Tigercat versus the Corsair.

He said the Tigercat accelerated faster, was faster overall, climbed much better, and hit a lot harder, but wasn't quite as agile. Later variants of the Corsair may have been a bit faster at the top end. But the Tigercat had accelerated away so fast that any encounter would be over before the Corsair would catch up. And despite any published numbers, no Corsair would climb with a Tigercat.
 
Talked with Steve Hinton about the Tigercat versus the Corsair.

He said the Tigercat accelerated faster, was faster overall, climbed much better, and hit a lot harder, but wasn't quite as agile. Later variants of the Corsair may have been a bit faster at the top end. But the Tigercat had accelerated away so fast that any encounter would be over before the Corsair would catch up. And despite any published numbers, no Corsair would climb with a Tigercat.

How awesome to hear that from a pilot that has flown both. Thank you
 
You're welcome. Steve has absolutely no axe to grind and likes most aircraft, though he is not fond of flying the IL-2.

It's pretty neat having some guys around who KNOW what they're talking about. I had dinner with Hoot Gibson and we taloked Navay flying. He flew F-4's and the F-14A. Never got to fly the F-14D model, but knows about it. He reminded me that the F-14A covered the last withdrawl from Viet Nam ... and they goit a combat mission award for it even though no opposition was seen.

Sorry, nothing to do with the Tigercat ...
 
No matter what, I think the Tigercat was the prettiest twin ANYTHING of the war, even as late as it was. It's just a beautiful bird, and always has been.
 
YEah it is. Fighter Rebuilders is restoring one right now for a private owner, and it will be beautiful. I don;t know what color scheme the owner will paint it, but the landing gear are dark Navy blue, so maybe the plane will be, too.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back