Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 8:59 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2021 6:12 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm
Posts: 7540
What a pity. Or was it?

In 1945, two Tigercats, serial numbers TT346 and TT349, were evaluated, but rejected by the British Royal Navy, who preferred a naval version of the de Havilland Hornet. Alleged what killed the Tigercat in the eyes of the RN was its single-engine handling in landing configuration, it was seen as unacceptable for carrier ops, at least early on. The USN apparently agreed.

Only two Tigercats were assessed by the Royal Navy and none saw service with the Fleet Air Arm. The single aircraft, TT349(Bu Aer No 80293) was received at the naval unit at A&AEE Boscombe Down in December 1944 and another, TT346 was sent for trials with 787 squadron in February, 1945.

Assessment by the naval test pilots at Boscombe Down indicated that the cockpit featrures were regarded as poor, due to a lack of rear view. The aircraft was regarded as suitable for deck operations which was aided by good view, absence of take off swing, low power- on stall and good lateral stability. However, the type was rendered unacceptable to the FAA as tested due to poor elavator response at approach speeds.

Manufacturer: Grumman

Primary function: Fighter

Powerplant: Two Pratt&Whitney R-2800-22W engines

Thrust: Two 2072 hp, Two 1545 kW

Crew: One

Wingspan: 51.5 ft, 15.7 m

Length: 45.4 ft, 13.85 m

Height: 16.6 ft, 5.06 m

Wing area: 455 sq ft, 42.27 sq m

Weight empty: 15957 lbs, 7238 kg

Weight max: 23656 lbs, 1030 kg

Max speed: 427 mph, 687 kph

Ceiling: 36090 ft, 11000 m

Max range: 1790 miles, 2880 km

Armament: Four 20 mm cannon, Four 12.7 mm machine gun 300 rounds each), Two 454 kg bombs or six rockets; alternative under fuselage one 21inch torpedo

Imager

Image

Image
Royal-Navy Grumman F7F-2N Tigercat Parked, As Flown by Test-Pilot Captain Eric Melrose 'Winkle' Brown, Cbe, Dsc, Afc, Fraes, Rn

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

_________________
[Thread title is ridiculous btw]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2021 6:41 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 7:43 pm
Posts: 1168
Location: Marietta, GA
Let's be honest. The Brits rejected it because they had the Sea Hornet, which was at basically the same point in development. With the war over, they needed domestic jobs, and it made a lot of sense to buy the Sea Hornet.

Now, which one was a better machine of war, I dunno. But the Sea Hornet checked most of the same boxes and was built in blighty.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2021 6:51 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:27 am
Posts: 5228
Location: Eastern Washington
Have to agree with KyleB.
The Brits were broke and unless the Tigercats were free under lend lease, they didn't want them.
Their aviation industry was a source of jobs and export sales, so they had to keep it going even if some of the gear was inferior to American types (not that I'm saying that was the case here).

And then there is ego/pride...in a recent issue of FlyPast, an author wrote, with presumably straight face, that the Seafire was the best carrier based fighter of the war!
No mention of Hellcats, Corsairs, or even "Zeros". :)

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2021 12:57 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:40 pm
Posts: 1454
I wonder if any thought was ever given to putting counter rotating engines on the Tigercat and how much of a difference it would have made.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2021 12:58 pm 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:10 pm
Posts: 3185
Location: New York
It would have been ludicrous for Britain to consider buying the F7F. The Hornet and Sea Hornet were better for their needs and more suited to their style, and the F7F did not offer any performance or capability advantage. Plus, Sea Hornets actually could be operated from carriers. Talk about ego/pride -- if anything, the US should have considered buying some Hornets, if it really needed a twin prop carrier fighter, since the F7F was an abject failure in that role.

August


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2021 12:59 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 9:48 pm
Posts: 1102
Location: West Valley, Silicon Valley
I was hoping for some photos of Tigercats in FAA camo pattern.....

pop2

_________________
remember the Oogahonk!
old school enthusiast of Civiltary Warbirds and Air Racers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2021 1:15 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 9:48 pm
Posts: 1102
Location: West Valley, Silicon Valley
Lon Moer wrote:
I was hoping for some photos of Tigercats in FAA camo pattern.....

pop2

Ok.. Further searching has turned up that the second Cat (TT346) assigned to FAA Sqn 787 Sqn in Feb 45 was kept in it's then-current gloss Dark Sea Blue livery but had full FAA markings (all six roundels with yellow outlines) and the No.787 Sqn letter codes Y0-S (that's a "zero"), with the individual aircraft code of "S" on both the fuselage and vertical stab..

All I have found so far is a SIM skin.
pop2
Attachment:
ScreenShot_20211206101252.jpeg


_________________
remember the Oogahonk!
old school enthusiast of Civiltary Warbirds and Air Racers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2021 4:00 pm 
Offline
Been here a long time
Been here a long time

Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am
Posts: 11276
C VEICH wrote:
I wonder if any thought was ever given to putting counter rotating engines on the Tigercat and how much of a difference it would have made.
What difference do you think it would have made?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: corsairfan, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 78 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group