PDA

View Full Version : SeaFury vs Bearcat



mynameisroland
12-03-2007, 04:18 AM
Have you guys seen this newly added pdf?

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/seafury-x.pdf

I didnt realise how good the Sea Fury was, does anyone have a link for similar Bearcat data?

Cheers

K_Freddie
12-03-2007, 04:56 AM
Radial engine, Tapering fuselage, squarer wingtips and tail sections... Hmmmmm !! I'm sure I've seen this plane over Europe a few years ago. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Nice find
Thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ElAurens
12-03-2007, 05:35 AM
The Bearcat is much faster in climb.

They are designed for different roles.

The Bearcat was designed as a pure point interceptor for close in fleet defense.

The Sea Fury is much closer in concept to the late "Super Corsairs"

Having the Sea Fury in the upcoming Korean War sim will be much fun.

Ratsack
12-03-2007, 05:51 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
The Bearcat is much faster in climb.
...

Really? What was it's rate of climb? Must've been spectacular for a prop if it's better than 5,640 ft/min at S.L.

cheers,
Ratsack

mynameisroland
12-03-2007, 05:52 AM
The Fury has a rate of climb of over 5,600 ft a min a sea level. What was the Bearcats ElAurens?

edit beat me to it Ratsack

I have always thought that the SeaFury's rate of climb was closer to that of the Tempests but its performance was phenomenal.

410 mph at sea level!

Also Id disagree about the concepts between the SeaFury and the Bearcat differing that much. Both were designed as light fighters, lighter and smaller than their forebearers and both were heavily influenced by the Fw 190.

Ratsack
12-03-2007, 06:06 AM
I don't know much about the Bearcat, other than that a modded one was supposed to have held the world air speed record for props.

cheers,
Ratsack

mynameisroland
12-03-2007, 07:18 AM
The Bearcat was very manuverable and had a rocket like rate of climb but was slower than the SeaFury and now after reading the performance data for the Fury I wonder just how much better its roc actually was.

Bewolf
12-03-2007, 07:24 AM
Wikipedia, very dodgy source, but for a first impression:

Rate of climb: 4,570 ft/min (23.2 m/s)

No alt given for that.

R_Target
12-03-2007, 07:26 AM
The Bearcat time-to-climb record was 94 seconds to 10,000 ft. No ammo, 50% fuel. Sea Fury was a hot plane though, no doubt, and certainly faster than an F8F-1.

Xiolablu3
12-03-2007, 07:27 AM
Good aircraft, bit outdated by Jets at this time tho.

Its like a cross between the Typhoon and the FW190.

As has already been stated, the FW190 was a significant design influence for the Bearcat and the Fury.

Bewolf
12-03-2007, 07:29 AM
Just read the Bearcat was limited to 4.5g only. That's not exactly a lot.

luftluuver
12-03-2007, 07:33 AM
F8F

Initial Rate of Climb 6,300 ft/min

http://rwebs.net/ghostsqd/f8f.htm

R_Target
12-03-2007, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
Just read the Bearcat was limited to 4.5g only. That's not exactly a lot.

Corky Meyer, test pilot for the F8F:


A steelstrap fix was installed to give the Bearcat sufficient strength for carrier landings and 7.5G in the air, but the Bearcat was soon supplanted in operational squadrons by the much faster Grumman Panther and McDonnell Banshee jet fighters.

Bewolf
12-03-2007, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
Just read the Bearcat was limited to 4.5g only. That's not exactly a lot.

Corky Meyer, test pilot for the F8F:


A steelstrap fix was installed to give the Bearcat sufficient strength for carrier landings and 7.5G in the air, but the Bearcat was soon supplanted in operational squadrons by the much faster Grumman Panther and McDonnell Banshee jet fighters.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


As of wikipedia, as usual always taken with a grain of salt:
Unfortunately the target weight was essentially impossible to achieve as the aircraft had to be made stronger for aircraft carrier landings, unlike the Focke-Wulf fighter. As a weight saving concept the designers came up with detachable wings- if the g-force exceeded 7.5g then the tips would snap off, leaving a perfectly flyable aircraft still capable of carrier landing. Unfortunately while this worked very well under carefully controlled conditions in flight and on the ground, in the field, where aircraft were repetitively stressed by landing on carriers and since the wings were slightly less carefully made in the factories, wings tended to break off while the vehicle bombed targets, and the aircraft would then crash. This was replaced with an explosives system to blow the wings off together, which also worked well, however this ended when a ground technician died due to accidental triggering. In the end the wings were reinforced and the aircraft limited to 4.5g. However crashes still continued, as this limit would sometimes be exceeded, and the wing would tend to break off at the root.[5]

mynameisroland
12-03-2007, 07:44 AM
luftluver I've seen that link before but was never convinced by its accuracy.

I havent read any performance data that suggests a 1945 F8F could achieve 458 mph in level flight or hit over 6000 fpm initial roc.

One thing worth noting is according to the two links posted in this thread the SeaFury is lighter than the Bearcat and has more horsepower.

R_Target
12-03-2007, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
As of wikipedia, as usual always taken with a grain of salt

Definitely.

luftluuver
12-03-2007, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
luftluver I've seen that link before but was never convinced by its accuracy.
10,000ft in 94 sec works out to ~6370f/m.

Ratsack
12-03-2007, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
F8F

Initial Rate of Climb 6,300 ft/min

http://rwebs.net/ghostsqd/f8f.htm

If that is true... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif


Ratsack

R_Target
12-03-2007, 08:07 AM
Is 9,240lb the correct empty weight of the Sea Fury?

mynameisroland
12-03-2007, 08:13 AM
Yes R_Target, its withing 100lb of that figure from most sources

R_Target
12-03-2007, 08:28 AM
Here's the empty and full ammo/fuel weights for the F8F-1.

http://i12.tinypic.com/8c2gjl5.gif

mynameisroland
12-03-2007, 08:53 AM
The link luft posted had it at higher than that, maybe it was for a later variant?

luftluuver
12-03-2007, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The link luft posted had it at higher than that, maybe it was for a later variant? Yes it was for the F8F-2. This version carried 4 20mm cannons.

R_Target
12-03-2007, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Yes it was for the F8F-2. This version carried 4 20mm cannons.

Yeah, it looks like the empty weight of F8F-2 was about 500lbs more.

reisen52
12-03-2007, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
luftluver I've seen that link before but was never convinced by its accuracy.
10,000ft in 94 sec works out to ~6370f/m. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC that record was set from a standing start.

ploughman
12-03-2007, 10:06 AM
W00t! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif Ripping rate of climb there Gromet.

fordfan25
12-03-2007, 11:00 AM
-4tw

http://home.att.net/~historyzone/F4U-4.html (http://home.att.net/%7Ehistoryzone/F4U-4.html)

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

R_Target
12-03-2007, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by reisen52:
IIRC that record was set from a standing start.

Correct, brakes off to 10,000ft.

R_Target
12-03-2007, 11:35 AM
I found some weights in Graham White's R-2800 book.

F8F-1: Empty weight- 7070 lbs
Gross weight- 9386 lbs
Max T.O. weight-12,947 lbs

F8F-2: Empty weight- 7690 lbs
Gross weight- 10,426 lbs
Max T.O. weight-13,494 lbs

Y0RGO
12-03-2007, 12:34 PM
Y0RGO find this intrest:

Over Europe, things were somewhat different. The Luftwaffe flew fast, heavily armed aircraft that were not especially suited to low speed turning fights. The Allies had in their inventory the Spitfire, which was very adept at turning fights. The Americans had the P-47, P-38 and P-51. All of which were very fast and at least a match for the German fighters in maneuverability. Especially the P-38 which could out-turn anything the Luftwaffe had and could give the Spitfire pilot pause to consider his own mortality. With the exception of these last two, there was nothing in western Europe that could hang with the F4U-4. Even when including the Soviets, only the Yak-3 could hope to survive a one on one with the Corsair. To do so, the Yak would have to expertly flown. Furthermore, the Yak-3 was strictly a low to medium altitude fighter. Above 20,000 ft its power dropped off rapidly, as did its maneuverability. The Yak-3 in question had better be powered by the Klimov M107A engine and not the low output M105. Otherwise, the speed difference is too great to overcome.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
12-03-2007, 12:50 PM
YORGO - Corsair is shoot down Mig-15 like Sea Fury, yes?

Xiolablu3
12-03-2007, 12:58 PM
WHere is that from YORGO?

Surely the La7 would compete well with the Corsair? Also the Tempest? I cannot think in a 1 on 1 at low to medium altitude that the Corsair would win a close-in dogfight with a Yak-3. The Yak is one of the most manouverable late war prop fighters along with the late Spitfire XIV's and MkIX 25lbs.

I'm not sure who wrote it, but some bits of it seem plausible, others not.

I'll wager it was written by an American? Possibly with little knowledge of Russian and German fighters?

On the German side, the Me262 and FW190D would certainly give the Corsair a run for its money IMO.

GIAP.Shura
12-03-2007, 01:10 PM
I was hoping this was going to be some sort of WWF contest involving everyone's favourite mod. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Antoninus
12-03-2007, 01:48 PM
When talking about the post WW2 F4U-4 usage the performance using 115/145 grade fuel should be relevant, which is considerable improved over the values with 100/130 grade fuel quoted in the "Best fighter bomber" article.

4800 fpm initial climb rate and
463 mph top speed in clean condition (20600 ft)
383 mph at sea level

http://history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f4u-4.pdf

fordfan25
12-03-2007, 04:03 PM
North American P-51H 'Mustang'

Description
Manufacturer: North American


Base model: P-51
Designation: P-51
Version: H
Nickname: Mustang
Designation System: U.S. Air Force
Designation Period: 1925-1947
Basic role: Pursuit
Crew: Pilot
See Also:

Specifications
Length: 33' 4" 10.1 m
Height: 13' 8" 4.1 m
Wingspan: 37' 11.3 m
Wingarea: 233.0 sq ft 21.6 sq m
Empty Weight: 6,585 lb 2,986 kg
Gross Weight: 11,054 lb 5,013 kg

Propulsion
No. of Engines: 1
Powerplant: Rolls-Royce (Parkard) V-1650-9 Merlin
Horsepower (each): 1380

Performance
Range: 850 miles 1,368 km
Cruise Speed: 380 mph 611 km/h 330 kt
Max Speed: 487 mph 784 km/h 423 kt
Ceiling: 41,600 ft 12,679 m

Known serial numbers



HEHEHEHEHEHE

BillyTheKid_22
12-03-2007, 05:03 PM
Very Good!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Viper2005_
12-03-2007, 05:23 PM
At low altitudes it's rather hard to beat a Fury.

The most telling figures are:


Percentage structure weight ... 29
Percentage power-unit weight ... 38


Direct comparison with the P-51H isn't really very fair because the V-1650-9 has such different full throttle heights from the Centaurus XVIII. I also have a feeling that the 487 mph figure quoted is for the -11 engine which was even mightier than the -9...

If however we assume 2400 bhp at 18000 feet at the AUW of 12,030 lb for the Sea Fury giving a top speed of 460 mph TAS, we can attempt a quasi non-dimensional comparison.

2400 bhp/12030 lbm ~ 0.1995 bhp/lbm
460 mph TAS at 18000 feet ~ 347 mph EAS (which is just a convenient way of expressing Q; well Q^0.5 if you want to be pedantic)

347 mph EAS/0.1995 bhp/lbm ~ 1739 mph EAS/bhp/lbm.

Now let's consider the P-51H.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-64182.html

451 mph TAS at 21200 feet, 9544 lbm, 90" Hg with water injection giving around 1800 bhp.

1800 bhp/9544 lbm ~ 0.1886 bhp/lbm
451 mph TAS at 21200 feet ~ 323 mph EAS

323 mph EAS/0.1886 bhp/lbm = 1713 mph EAS/bhp/lbm

So assuming roughly equal prop efficiencies and exhaust thrust it would seem that the Sea Fury is a little cleaner than the P-51H. It is often forgotten just how much of the P-51's legendary performance is owed to the Merlin, and in particular to Stanley ******'s revolutionary mathematical approach to supercharger design & optimisation. IIRC there were plans to build Griffon powered Furies, probably fitted with 3 speed superchargers. But then Eric Brown landed a Sea Vampire on an aircraft carrier and history jumped tracks.

Anyway...

If you feel so inclined it should be possible to apply the same sort of analysis outlined above to the Bearcat.

It should go without saying that you can also make similar comparisons of ROC if you feel that way inclined.

fordfan25
12-03-2007, 07:47 PM
it is fair to compair. what matters is what a plane can do and what a plane cant do. for example i could let you fall to your death. but i cant bring this plane into tortuga all by me lonsome savy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

all joke aside 487 max speed at alt is awsome.

"It is often forgotten just how much of the P-51's legendary performance is owed to the Merlin," not realy as its said in every documentry that i have ever watched http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifdont get the wrong idea im not being seriose with the whole whos ****** is longer direction that this topic is takeing. IMHO that seafire is one awsome looking plane. i have no love for the spitty s i think its a ugly plane and just has never intersted me. not because its made by britts or anything. I love tempest and think its a kool plane and i like that seafire even more. bearcat vs seafire. hmm toss up to me. i would like to see them in a fogfight mock of course and see who can out manuver the other. remember from the things i read the bearcat could out turn late war zeros ki84s ect ect.of course if you wanted to be realistic about a what if between the seafire and bearcat it would be about 4 to 1 numbers hehehehe :P

fordfan25
12-03-2007, 07:56 PM
i only glanced threw it but it looks like all the flights listed in that link was with bombs or rockets droptanks ect?

Divine-Wind
12-03-2007, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by GIAP.Shura:
I was hoping this was going to be some sort of WWF contest involving everyone's favourite mod. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
Indeed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

VW-IceFire
12-03-2007, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Having the Sea Fury in the upcoming Korean War sim will be much fun.
One can only hope!

LEXX_Luthor
12-03-2007, 10:18 PM
F-82 Twin Zwilling could be the most interesting Korea plane, at least in the early part.

mynameisroland
12-04-2007, 04:09 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
WHere is that from YORGO?

Surely the La7 would compete well with the Corsair? Also the Tempest? I cannot think in a 1 on 1 at low to medium altitude that the Corsair would win a close-in dogfight with a Yak-3. The Yak is one of the most manouverable late war prop fighters along with the late Spitfire XIV's and MkIX 25lbs.

I'm not sure who wrote it, but some bits of it seem plausible, others not.

I'll wager it was written by an American? Possibly with little knowledge of Russian and German fighters?

On the German side, the Me262 and FW190D would certainly give the Corsair a run for its money IMO.

I agree Xiola, in a straight out dogfight 1 on 1 there are many late war fighters which could outmanuver and out fight the Corsair. La7, Spitfire XIV/21, Yak3, Spitfire IX, P38 ?!, Ki 84 ... Then you have a few which can match/exceed it in overall performance like the P51, Tempest II/V, the Fw 190 D9, Ta 152H, P47 M ect

What makes the Corsair special is that it was a carrier borne fighter - but while it was exceptional Id say the SeaFury was a better performer AND had better deck handling AND looked beter http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

mynameisroland
12-04-2007, 04:12 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:
I found some weights in Graham White's R-2800 book.

F8F-1: Empty weight- 7070 lbs
Gross weight- 9386 lbs
Max T.O. weight-12,947 lbs

F8F-2: Empty weight- 7690 lbs
Gross weight- 10,426 lbs
Max T.O. weight-13,494 lbs

R-Target do you know if the Bearcat which set that climb record was flying at Max T.O weight? I think the SeaFury's performance is based on Max T.O weight as Hawker generally tested the Tempest at Max T.O weight for climb and speed figures.

mynameisroland
12-04-2007, 04:16 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
North American P-51H 'Mustang'

Description
Manufacturer: North American


Base model: P-51
Designation: P-51
Version: H
Nickname: Mustang
Designation System: U.S. Air Force
Designation Period: 1925-1947
Basic role: Pursuit
Crew: Pilot
See Also:

Specifications
Length: 33' 4" 10.1 m
Height: 13' 8" 4.1 m
Wingspan: 37' 11.3 m
Wingarea: 233.0 sq ft 21.6 sq m
Empty Weight: 6,585 lb 2,986 kg
Gross Weight: 11,054 lb 5,013 kg

Propulsion
No. of Engines: 1
Powerplant: Rolls-Royce (Parkard) V-1650-9 Merlin
Horsepower (each): 1380

Performance
Range: 850 miles 1,368 km
Cruise Speed: 380 mph 611 km/h 330 kt
Max Speed: 487 mph 784 km/h 423 kt
Ceiling: 41,600 ft 12,679 m

Known serial numbers



HEHEHEHEHEHE

FordFan, that data looks innaccurate.

Merlin 1380 HP! Try nearer to 2,200 Hp

If we are starting a piston engined p1ssing contest I submit on behalf of Her Majesty's Govenment http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The DeHavilland Hornet - Eric Browns favourite Piston engined fighter (he flew every major fighter of WW2)

The Supermarine Spiteful - 491 mph

The Hawker Fury (Sabre VII) - 3050 Hp, 483 mph and 5085 ft/min roc

JG53Frankyboy
12-04-2007, 04:33 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
WHere is that from YORGO?

Surely the La7 would compete well with the Corsair? Also the Tempest? I cannot think in a 1 on 1 at low to medium altitude that the Corsair would win a close-in dogfight with a Yak-3. The Yak is one of the most manouverable late war prop fighters along with the late Spitfire XIV's and MkIX 25lbs.

I'm not sure who wrote it, but some bits of it seem plausible, others not.

I'll wager it was written by an American? Possibly with little knowledge of Russian and German fighters?

On the German side, the Me262 and FW190D would certainly give the Corsair a run for its money IMO.

I agree Xiola, in a straight out dogfight 1 on 1 there are many late war fighters which could outmanuver and out fight the Corsair. La7, Spitfire XIV/21, Yak3, Spitfire IX, P38 ?!, Ki 84 ... Then you have a few which can match/exceed it in overall performance like the P51, Tempest II/V, the Fw 190 D9, Ta 152H, P47 M ect

...................... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i personally would not underestimate the performance of an F4U-4 (AFAIK the last WW2 variant) or an afterwar -5 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Y0RGO
12-04-2007, 05:10 AM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
YORGO - Corsair is shoot down Mig-15 like Sea Fury, yes?

Yes, Y0RGO thank Low Fly on reminded;

On 10 September 1952, a MiG-15 made the mistake of getting into a turning contest with a Corsair piloted by Captain Jesse G. Folmar, with Folmar shooting the MiG down with his four 20 millimeter cannon.[38] The MiG's wingmen quickly had their revenge, shooting down Folmar, though he bailed out and was swiftly rescued with little injury.

This CorsAir is good and beuaty, yes?

http://pictopia.com/perl/get_image?provider_id=319&size=550x550_mb&ptp_photo_id=323372

mynameisroland
12-04-2007, 05:48 AM
YORGO the SeaFury also shot down Mig 15s and iirc the SeaFury shot down Corsairs while flying for the Cubans http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Viper2005_
12-04-2007, 07:08 AM
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AK1E5u6HatA

Y0RGO
12-04-2007, 07:16 AM
If you try make contested opose CorsAir with SeaFurry, Y0RGO canot change his mind. He is only in love for CorsAir. SeaFurry is more feal of, how is said, blande? CorsAir is more feal of give sex, yes?

http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/tl_sea_fury_t_mk_20_ub451.jpg

http://www.globalaircraft.org/photos/planephotos/f4u_1.jpg

Viper2005_
12-04-2007, 07:27 AM
I suspect that the Corsair would lose against the Sea Fury.

- The Sea Fury is faster
- The Sea Fury has a higher ROC

mynameisroland
12-04-2007, 07:39 AM
The SeaFury has a heavier armament (Mk V Hispanno)
better visibility
better deck handling
smaller dimensions
better performance

and from my subjective pov

is better looking
made by a manufacturor with more fighter design experience
piloted by better trained pilots
powered by a cooler engine

JG53Frankyboy
12-04-2007, 07:39 AM
i would more say between a SeaFury and an afterwar F4U-4 or -5 its a VERY close match !

luftluuver
12-04-2007, 07:51 AM
Then there is the Goodyear F2G Super Corsair. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

General characteristics

* Crew: 1
* Length: 33 ft 9 in (10.3 m)
* Wingspan: 41 ft (12.5 m)
* Height: 16 ft 1 in (4.9 m)
* Wing area: 314 ft² (29 m²)
* Empty weight: 10,249 lb (4,649 kg)
* Loaded weight: 13,346 lb (6,054 kg)
* Max takeoff weight: 15,422 lb (6,995 kg)
* Powerplant: 1× Pratt & Whitney R-4360-4 "Wasp Major" 28-cylinder radial engine, 3,000 hp (2,200 kW)

Performance

* Maximum speed: 431 mph (374 knots, 694 km/h) at 16,400 ft (5,000 m)
* Range: 1,955 mi (1,699 nm, 3,146 km) with external tanks
* Service ceiling: 38,800 ft (11,800 m)
* Rate of climb: 7,000 ft/min (35.6 m/s)
* Wing loading: 42.5 lb/ft² (208 kg/m²)
* Power/mass: 0.22 hp/lb (370 W/kg)

Armament

* Guns: 4× .50 caliber (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns, 400 rounds/gun
* Rockets: 8× 5 in (127 mm) rockets or
* Bombs: 1,600 lb (725 kg)

Y0RGO
12-04-2007, 07:58 AM
Next is back for topik: BEARCAT vs SeaFurry. BEARCAT is more choice for realism opose. On this case, also Y0RGO chose BEARCAT for sex and combatics.

http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/p51sforsale/bearcat95255apr2005/Hbearcat95255apr2005.jpg

stathem
12-04-2007, 08:05 AM
Has anyone any idea of the rough tactical and critical Mach limits for the Bearcat, Sea Fury and Corsair?

R_Target
12-04-2007, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
R-Target do you know if the Bearcat which set that climb record was flying at Max T.O weight? I think the SeaFury's performance is based on Max T.O weight as Hawker generally tested the Tempest at Max T.O weight for climb and speed figures.

50% fuel and no ammo in the "Operation Pogo Stick" F8F. "Max T.O. weight" for the F8F includes external fuel and 2x1000lb bombs. The Flight Magazine article on the Sea Fury gives an "all-up weight" of 12,030lbs. With an empty weight of ~9,250lbs, they would have to be using some really light fuel and ammunition to squeeze in drop tanks and bombs and still make 12,000lbs.

Another thing to remember is that this magazine article is dated January 1946, about seven months before the first production Sea Furies were delivered. RN testing of serial models would certainly be interesting to see.

Bewolf
12-04-2007, 08:40 AM
Soo, what plane held the edge then?

Seafury or Bearcat?

stathem
12-04-2007, 08:43 AM
SeaBear ftw!

no, wait,

FuryCat!

no, wait...

Y0RGO
12-04-2007, 08:51 AM
SeaCAT, yes?

BEARfurry?

stathem
12-04-2007, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by Y0RGO:
BEARfurry?

..usually.

WOLFMondo
12-04-2007, 08:56 AM
What about the Tigercat vs Seahornet?

mynameisroland
12-04-2007, 10:20 AM
Well if your talking about overall manuverability and performance it has to be the Sea Hornet.

WOLFMondo
12-04-2007, 10:35 AM
Very likely, the Hornet was uber but I want to see charts, graphs and all that jazz!

Aaron_GT
12-04-2007, 10:57 AM
Just read the Bearcat was limited to 4.5g only. That's not exactly a lot.

postwar peacetime limit?

mynameisroland
12-04-2007, 11:04 AM
why did the bearcat have those wing tips that broke off at high G? iirc the later abondoned this idea and decided to fix them all to be permanent parts of the wing. Could this have anything to do with it?

R_Target
12-04-2007, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Well if your talking about overall manuverability and performance it has to be the Sea Hornet.

I'd have to agree. Raw speed is close, but I don't believe the Tigercat was as maneuverable as the Hornet.

Xiolablu3
12-04-2007, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
why did the bearcat have those wing tips that broke off at high G? iirc the later abondoned this idea and decided to fix them all to be permanent parts of the wing. Could this have anything to do with it?

From what I have been reading, I gathered that it performed better with these wing tips on in the lower G ranges, but in the high G ranges the wings would snap off, so they made the wings very strong, but the wing tips able to break off so that it wouldnt rip the whole wing off, just the tip.

Sort of like 'its better to lose the tip rather than the whole wing' idea.

In the end they decided it was almost as dangerous as the whole wing coming off if one tip came off and the other didnt, which often happened.

Therefore the idea was abandoned.

A few Bearcats were subsequently lost as their wings came off under high-G.

***'The Bearcat had a broad resemblance to the Hellcat, but it was very different in detail and it is unclear how much parts commonality it had with the Hellcat. Like the Hellcat, it was a barrel-shaped aircraft with a low-mounted wings and guns in the wings. However, it had an empty weight about 20% less and featured a clearly distinctive all-round vision bubble canopy, the first operational US Navy fighter with such a feature. It also differed from the Hellcat in having the main gear pivot in the wings and retract towards the fuselage. The wingtips folded up; the Bearcat featured "safety wingtips", in which a wingtip would shear loose at high gee stresses and prevent the entire wing from giving way, permitting the wing to be designed to lower stress limits. '


SOmething about it here but I havent read it all :-

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_199808/ai_n8826530/pg_1

R_Target
12-04-2007, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
why did the bearcat have those wing tips that broke off at high G? iirc the later abondoned this idea and decided to fix them all to be permanent parts of the wing. Could this have anything to do with it?

The original idea was to save weight. The idea was abandoned and, as Meyer says at the conclusion of the exploding wing tips fiasco:


A steelstrap fix was installed to give the Bearcat sufficient strength for carrier landings and 7.5G in the air

mynameisroland
12-04-2007, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Well if your talking about overall manuverability and performance it has to be the Sea Hornet.

I'd have to agree. Raw speed is close, but I don't believe the Tigercat was as maneuverable as the Hornet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What was the TigerCats speed and climb like? Service Hornets went at around 472 mph and were excellent performers at all altitudes thanks to their well developed and tailored to fit Merlins.

Divine-Wind
12-04-2007, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by Y0RGO:
If you try make contested opose CorsAir with SeaFurry, Y0RGO canot change his mind. He is only in love for CorsAir. SeaFurry is more feal of, how is said, blande? CorsAir is more feal of give sex, yes?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif Quote of the year

luftluuver
12-04-2007, 11:20 AM
The Hornet had stability problems and even the fin fillet did not completely fix the problem.

F8F
As a weight saving concept the designers came up with detachable wings- if the g-force exceeded 7.5g then the tips would snap off, leaving a perfectly flyable aircraft still capable of carrier landing. Unfortunately while this worked very well under carefully controlled conditions in flight and on the ground, in the field, where aircraft were repetitively stressed by landing on carriers and since the wings were slightly less carefully made in the factories, wings tended to break off while the vehicle bombed targets, and the aircraft would then crash. This was replaced with an explosives system to blow the wings off together, which also worked well, however this ended when a ground technician died due to accidental triggering. In the end the wings were reinforced and the aircraft limited to 4.5g. However crashes still continued, as this limit would sometimes be exceeded, and the wing would tend to break off at the root.

Link to F6F and F8F, http://www.vectorsite.net/avf6f.html

R_Target
12-04-2007, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
What was the TigerCats speed and climb like? Service Hornets went at around 472 mph and were excellent performers at all altitudes thanks to their well developed and tailored to fit Merlins.

Most "quicky" sources have around 460-465mph for the F7F, and I found a climb figure of 6000ft/m, but I think that climb speed is optimistic. 5000+ wouldn't surprise me though, if I could dig up some decent information.

R_Target
12-04-2007, 11:27 AM
From the F8F pilot's handbook:

http://i15.tinypic.com/6owvipv.gif

Antoninus
12-05-2007, 09:44 AM
Does anybody has more info about the Sea Fury's armament?

According to the wikipedia article the fighter bomber version could carry 2000 ibs of bombs and 12 x 3 in rockets.

Could it carry any other rockets, how many and what kind of bombs could be carried, how many rounds were available for each of the four Hispanos?

Monty_Thrud
12-05-2007, 12:21 PM
I have a some information of the SeaFury, it's from the good book "Hawker Typhoon, Tempest and Sea Fury" by Kev Darling.

Although i'm a big Typhoon and Tempest fan, the Sea Fury is not really my thing, however...

http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//img014.jpg
http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//img013.jpg
http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//img012.jpg
http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//img011.jpg
http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//img010.jpg
http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//img009.jpg
http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//img008.jpg
http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//img007.jpg
http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//img006.jpg
http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//img005.jpg
http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//img004.jpg
http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//img003.jpg
http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//img002.jpg

SkyChimp
12-05-2007, 06:28 PM
The Sea Fury was a copy of the Fw-190, right?

Viper2005_
12-05-2007, 06:48 PM
Not really.

Its engine installation certainly owed a lot to the 190, but the rest of the airframe was essentially an improved (lightened) Tempest.

SkyChimp
12-05-2007, 07:01 PM
But the Tempest borrowed most of it's design attributes from the 190.

ElAurens
12-05-2007, 08:08 PM
SkyChimp, I think they forget the last time someone tried to say the F8F was just a copy of the FW 190, forgetting all the while that the FW190 was just a copy of the P36...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Good to see you again, BTW.

wayno7777
12-05-2007, 08:22 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/wayno77/FB%20shots/Aircraft/Airshow6-4-05aSeaFuryb-1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/wayno77/FB%20shots/Aircraft/Airshow6-4-05aSeaFury-1.jpg

R_Target
12-05-2007, 08:53 PM
Snapped this one a couple of years ago.

http://i11.tinypic.com/7wzd5ip.jpg

WOLFMondo
12-06-2007, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
But the Tempest borrowed most of it's design attributes from the 190.

No, the Centaurus cooling system (on Tempest II's and Seafury's) and some of the engine mount was copied from the 190. The Tempest was an evolution from the Typhoon, which in turn was an evolution from the Hurricane and in turn was evolved from the Hawker biplanes of the 30's.

KIMURA
12-06-2007, 03:18 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
why did the bearcat have those wing tips that broke off at high G? iirc the later abondoned this idea and decided to fix them all to be permanent parts of the wing. Could this have anything to do with it?

Grumman abadoned that idea because it was too difficult to synchronise the wingtip release mechanism.

mynameisroland
12-06-2007, 03:47 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
But the Tempest borrowed most of it's design attributes from the 190.

I was under the impression that the Tempest took most of its design attributes from the Typhoon

ie

everything except for the wing

Whirlin_merlin
12-06-2007, 04:22 AM
I would give up a testicle for either one but not both testicles for both of them!

SkyChimp
12-06-2007, 04:44 AM
OK, so the FW-190 borrowed heavily from the Typhoon. I knew the Germans couldn't make the best planes of the war without British help.

whiteladder
12-06-2007, 05:28 AM
OK, so the FW-190 borrowed heavily from the Typhoon. I knew the Germans couldn't make the best planes of the war without British help.


Do I detect a hint of scarcasam?

Aircraft designs have always been influenced by trends in other countries, its only natural.

But to suggest the Seafury design features are borrowed directly from the FW190 doesn`t hold any water, because they are so different from each other. The aerodynamics are fundementally different,(aerofoil section, wing forms/area/shape etc) as are a number of other features.

Ok so they both have a radial engine, but as already pointed out so had a number of American designs. More importantly the British had direct operational experience of a large number of American radial engine designs, it is more likely that these influenced the design more than a German one. The other design features such as the bubble canopy bare closer resemblance to American one than German.

As for armanment the British trend for cannon armament was independant of German trends.

Not sure exactly what "features" were borrowed from the 190?

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/3048/seafuryeq8.jpg

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/7801/seafury2yv2.jpg

mynameisroland
12-06-2007, 05:33 AM
Originally posted by whiteladder:The other design features such as the bubble canopy bare closer resemblance to American one than German.

As for armanment the British trend for cannon armament was independant of German trends.


Hi Whiteladder,

Were you aware that the bubble canopy used on P47s nad P51s came from the Typhoon ?

WOLFMondo
12-06-2007, 07:07 AM
Whiteladder, the Tempest II and Seafury's Centaurus cooling system did borrow ideas from the 190. They tried to also put an annular system on the Sabre but was overly complex for use in the field.

berg417448
12-06-2007, 09:43 AM
The Chimp is getting a lot of fish here!

ElAurens
12-06-2007, 04:29 PM
Be sure!

Such short memories.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

SkyChimp
12-06-2007, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by whiteladder:
Do I detect a hint of scarcasam?


No.



Aircraft designs have always been influenced by trends in other countries, its only natural.

But to suggest the Seafury design features are borrowed directly from the FW190 doesn`t hold any water, because they are so different from each other. The aerodynamics are fundementally different,(aerofoil section, wing forms/area/shape etc) as are a number of other features.


But the similarities can't be ignored. They both had wings, radial engines, canopies, pilots, and wide-stand landing gears.




Ok so they both have a radial engine, but as already pointed out so had a number of American designs. More importantly the British had direct operational experience of a large number of American radial engine designs, it is more likely that these influenced the design more than a German one.


Well, I agree with you there since the Americans invented the radial engine.




The other design features such as the bubble canopy bare closer resemblance to American one than German.

They were bought from the same supplier.




As for armanment the British trend for cannon armament was independant of German trends.


Not really. The British used machine guns until they learned the Germans were using cannons. The British, wisely, decided they didn't want to be on the end of a cannon *****-slap so they armed their planes with cannons, too.




Not sure exactly what "features" were borrowed from the 190?

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/3048/seafuryeq8.jpg

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/7801/seafury2yv2.jpg

Isn't it obvious?

Low_Flyer_MkIX
12-06-2007, 05:26 PM
Is it time to mention the cannon-armed, bubble-canopied Westland Whirlwind yet?

And as an as an aside, does anyone else think a 1940 sim dovetailed with a 1950 sim is going to lead to some interesting 'stand-ins' for anyone wanting to do anything in between?

ARCHIE_CALVERT
12-06-2007, 06:38 PM
If we had built the SeaFury with the Sabre VII-powered Fury instead of the Centaurus it would have ate Bearcats for breakfast...

ARCHIE_CALVERT
12-06-2007, 06:43 PM
http://www.vicflintham.co.uk/content/post-war-research-aircraft-and-prototypes/furyc.jpg

jarink
12-06-2007, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by ARCHIE_CALVERT:
If we had built the SeaFury with the Sabre VII-powered Fury instead of the Centaurus it would have ate Bearcats for breakfast...

The two were really built to different purposes, (the Bearcat being more of a Kamikaze interceptor while the Sea Fury was more of a fighter-bomber) The Bearcat was never that great of a fighter. When jets came on the scene, it was too slow to compete as a fighter and had too small of a bombload for ground attack.

Korolov1986
12-06-2007, 08:29 PM
So, why is it called "SeaFury" and not "WateryTyphoon"? Or "BoatbasedCyclone"? How about "OceanHurricane"?

Naming conventions make no sense. When does a Tempest become a Fury? A Tempest is a Tempest!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

dangerlaef
12-06-2007, 10:05 PM
The similarity was more apparent on the export versions.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b99/DangerLaef/export-seafury.jpg

WOLFMondo
12-07-2007, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by Korolov1986:

When does a Tempest become a Fury?

When you cut out half the wings, raise the cockpit, monocoque the rear fuselage and stick a stinger hook on the back end.

Viper2005_
12-07-2007, 05:29 AM
Aeroplanes look alike for a variety of reasons.

But IME the main reason is that the laws of physics, aero and thermodynamics are basically the same for everybody. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

IMO the major intellectual contribution of the 190 to combat tactics was the emphasis it placed upon roll rate; but Quill had already noted the importance of roll rate when flying Spitfires in combat in 1940 before anyone in Britain knew anything about the 190.

mynameisroland
12-07-2007, 06:34 AM
Thats true Viper, the Spitfire III featured smaller wing tips before the Fw 190 was even heard of.

interestingly I have seen a plan drawing of the Tempest Mk I, it looks like they had planned for a version with extended tips aka Spitfires wing.

Ratsack
12-07-2007, 07:14 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
As for armanment the British trend for cannon armament was independant of German trends.


Not really. The British used machine guns until they learned the Germans were using cannons. The British, wisely, decided they didn't want to be on the end of a cannon *****-slap so they armed their planes with cannons, too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, really. The British move toward cannon pre-dates WWII. They just didn't come up with a suitable cannon or configuration before the war started.

cheers,
Ratsack

ElAurens
12-07-2007, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
IMO the major intellectual contribution of the 190 to combat tactics was the emphasis it placed upon roll rate; but Quill had already noted the importance of roll rate when flying Spitfires in combat in 1940 before anyone in Britain knew anything about the 190.

The Curtiss P36/Hawk75 had roll rates approaching that of the 190 when the Bf109 was just a baby. Really nothing new there.

SkyChimp
12-07-2007, 05:25 PM
I'm all confused now. The Germans and the British didn't copy each other. Then they must have copied the Americans.

ploughman
12-07-2007, 05:32 PM
Thomas Paine.