dogfight

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:16:28 -0500, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

Morgans wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote

The 51 was a fine airplane, and it worked well at all altitudes but it was
nearing the end of its run at the end of the war.
I loved the airplane and flew it often but for me, flying the F8F Bearcat
one sunny afternoon in December, redefined the meaning of the term "prop
fighter performance".
In my opinion, if the war had lingered on and the Bear had been mass
produced for both theaters, the F8F would have not seen its match
anywhere.

Interesting. I had never heard that expressed, before.

Would the F8F had the legs to do the long range bomber escort missions?

As I recall the F8F had the most powerful piston engine ever used in a
fighter. Then later the same engine was used in the Skyraider. Now
there is one BIG airplane! Not very fast, but BIG!

Roger (K8RI)


How about top speeds; was it as fast, or faster than the 51?
The Bear had VERY short legs and even with the drop tank would never
have made it as a long range fighter.
In close, intercept, and shoot it down fast was the Bear's prime
intended function.

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in
:

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:16:28 -0500, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

Morgans wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote

The 51 was a fine airplane, and it worked well at all altitudes but
it was nearing the end of its run at the end of the war.
I loved the airplane and flew it often but for me, flying the F8F
Bearcat one sunny afternoon in December, redefined the meaning of
the term "prop fighter performance".
In my opinion, if the war had lingered on and the Bear had been
mass produced for both theaters, the F8F would have not seen its
match anywhere.

Interesting. I had never heard that expressed, before.

Would the F8F had the legs to do the long range bomber escort
missions?

As I recall the F8F had the most powerful piston engine ever used in a
fighter. Then later the same engine was used in the Skyraider. Now
there is one BIG airplane! Not very fast, but BIG!


Nah, it only had a R2800 and not a very powerful variant at that. The P47
used a more powerful version of the same engine and there were other more
powerful airplanes out there like the later Griffon powered Spitfires and
the Hawker Sea Fury.
I don't think any of them went any better than the Bearcat, though.


Bertie

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:16:28 -0500, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

Morgans wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote

The 51 was a fine airplane, and it worked well at all altitudes but it was
nearing the end of its run at the end of the war.
I loved the airplane and flew it often but for me, flying the F8F Bearcat
one sunny afternoon in December, redefined the meaning of the term "prop
fighter performance".
In my opinion, if the war had lingered on and the Bear had been mass
produced for both theaters, the F8F would have not seen its match
anywhere.
Interesting. I had never heard that expressed, before.

Would the F8F had the legs to do the long range bomber escort missions?

As I recall the F8F had the most powerful piston engine ever used in a
fighter. Then later the same engine was used in the Skyraider. Now
there is one BIG airplane! Not very fast, but BIG!

Roger (K8RI)

How about top speeds; was it as fast, or faster than the 51?
The Bear had VERY short legs and even with the drop tank would never
have made it as a long range fighter.
In close, intercept, and shoot it down fast was the Bear's prime
intended function.

Hi Rog;

The Bear can an R2800 in it. The -2 that I flew I believe had a 2800-30
in it. The entire airplane was just a frame to support the engine.
One of the things I liked about the Bear was that Grumman drooped the
nose a bit (they did this on all their prop fighters) so you could
actually see where the hell you were going. It was an awesome airplane.
The prop at rest (had a huge Aero Products on the nose) looked like the
diameter spanned the wing tips :-)) On takeoff, it broke ground before
you could get the throttle up. Unlike the 51, you couldn't allow the
stick to come forward a bit on the takeoff roll because of the severe
lack of tip clearance on the prop. You took off 3 point and you landed 3
point in the Bearcat.
It was and still is a wonderful airplane!
I think I can say with some degree of certainty that Streak wouldn't
**** on the tires of the Bear, it was THAT pretty!!
D

--
Dudley Henriques

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
news
Morgans wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote

The 51 was a fine airplane, and it worked well at all altitudes but it
was nearing the end of its run at the end of the war.
I loved the airplane and flew it often but for me, flying the F8F
Bearcat one sunny afternoon in December, redefined the meaning of the
term "prop fighter performance".
In my opinion, if the war had lingered on and the Bear had been mass
produced for both theaters, the F8F would have not seen its match
anywhere.

Interesting. I had never heard that expressed, before.

Would the F8F had the legs to do the long range bomber escort missions?

How about top speeds; was it as fast, or faster than the 51?
The Bear had VERY short legs and even with the drop tank would never have
made it as a long range fighter.
In close, intercept, and shoot it down fast was the Bear's prime intended
function.

Designed to defeat Kamikazes' at a distance, no?

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
news
Morgans wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote

The 51 was a fine airplane, and it worked well at all altitudes but it
was nearing the end of its run at the end of the war.
I loved the airplane and flew it often but for me, flying the F8F
Bearcat one sunny afternoon in December, redefined the meaning of the
term "prop fighter performance".
In my opinion, if the war had lingered on and the Bear had been mass
produced for both theaters, the F8F would have not seen its match
anywhere.
Interesting. I had never heard that expressed, before.

Would the F8F had the legs to do the long range bomber escort missions?

How about top speeds; was it as fast, or faster than the 51?
The Bear had VERY short legs and even with the drop tank would never have
made it as a long range fighter.
In close, intercept, and shoot it down fast was the Bear's prime intended
function.

Designed to defeat Kamikazes' at a distance, no?


Not all that far really. Total fuel was 185 gals without the drop tank,
so the range was severely limited. Figuring climb, cruise and combat
power settings, I'd say less than 90 minutes to bingo fuel.

--
Dudley Henriques

wrote in news:4a4b3843-18c7-4881-b8b8-
:



I don't know if there were any higher performance versions of the
ME-109,


There were. there were long wing variants built later in the war
specificially for high altitude ops.

but the TA-152 could outperform the Mustang. It was a souped
up version of the FW-190.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Ta_152


Well, the figures don't tell the whole story. while speed and rate of
clinmb certainly would have given an advantage, as a package, though,
it's much harder to define what makes one airplane superior to
another.Performance can be a lot more than numbers at the end of the
day...


For instance, there was a loonie Swedish count in the 1960s who
symathised with the Biafrans in their war of secession from Nigeria (
the short story here is that oil was discovered in Biafra and they
diecided to take the money and run, having been a seperate nation inthe
first place, only paired up with the rest of Nigeria by arbitrary
colonialist redefintion of nations)
Anyhoo. this guy and some of his buds gathered up the best airplanes
available to the, the Bolkow Junior, manufactured in Sweden as the Malmö
a midget little box of a thing with a Cont A75 in the nose,put some hard
points on it and off to Biafra they went. They proceeded to decimate the
Nigerian Air Force, which at that time had the very latest Russian
stuff, Mig 21s, 17s, etc by flying at treetop level to their bases and
launching their little match head missiles at them while they were still
on the grond. they'd then race back to their own lines at treetop level
at 75 knots and any Migs that got airborne found it impossible to get a
bead on them.
Eventaully, all of these mercenaries were killed (IIRC, there were
another half dozen airplanes and pilots brought it over time, also lost)
but the damage they inflicted on the vastly superior forces of the other
side were astonishing.
Just as well the NAF didn't have 150s, eh?

OK, this is an odd example, but it goes to show in a bizarre kind of way
that numbers in a performance column don't tell the whole story.


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote in news:Xns9A089F62B1341****upropeeh@
207.14.116.130:


Here's a pic of the Junior/Malmo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:B...d-edna.arp.jpg

I couldn't find any site with the whole story of this troup of adventurers
and it's years since I read the story, so my account mightn't be 100%..

Bertie

On Dec 16, 10:03 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote in news:Xns9A089F62B1341****upropeeh@
207.14.116.130:

Here's a pic of the Junior/Malmohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bolkow.junior.d-edna.arp.jpg

I couldn't find any site with the whole story of this troup of adventurers
and it's years since I read the story, so my account mightn't be 100%..

Bertie

Now that's airpower!

wrote in
:

On Dec 16, 10:03 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote in
news:Xns9A089F62B1341****upropeeh@ 207.14.116.130:

Here's a pic of the
Junior/Malmohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bolkow.junior.d-edna.ar
p.jpg

I couldn't find any site with the whole story of this troup of
adventurers and it's years since I read the story, so my account
mightn't be 100%..

Bertie

Now that's airpower!


Yeah, it's a great Davey and Goliath story. Another would be the story of
Faith Hope and Charity.. Three old Gloster Gladiators on Malta. The Flying
Tigers were boxed in and outclassed in experience and equipment, but made
the most of what they had as well. History is full of these stories and it
always seems to be the guys who throw the rulebok out the window who
prevail..


Bertie

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:40:10 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Dec 16, 10:03 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote in news:Xns9A089F62B1341****upropeeh@
207.14.116.130:

Here's a pic of the Junior/Malmohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bolkow.junior.d-edna.arp.jpg

I couldn't find any site with the whole story of this troup of adventurers
and it's years since I read the story, so my account mightn't be 100%..

Bertie

Now that's airpower!

A short account of the aircraft itself is at:

http://www.vectorsite.net/avsa105.html#m5

Ron Wanttaja