Aircraft/Loadouts Grumman F9F-7 and F9F-8 'Cougar'

[slowblade 389]

The Grumman F9F/F-9 Cougar was an aircraft carrier-based fighter aircraft for the United States Navy. Based on Grumman's earlier F9F Panther, the Cougar replaced the Panther's straight wing with a more modern swept wing. Thrust was also increased significantly. The Navy considered the Cougar an updated version of the Panther, despite having a different official name, and thus Cougars started off from F9F-6 upward.

 

EDIT- since @Retry was nice enough to give me the F9F-6 data, I might as well include it.

 

Specifications (F9F-6)

 

Type: Naval fighter

Crew: 1

Number built: 646

Length: 40ft 11in (12.47m)

Wingspan: 34ft 6in (10.51m)
Height: 12ft 4in (3.73m)

Engine: One Pratt & Whitney J48-P-8 turbojet generating 7,250Ib of thrust

Max speed: 654mph (1,053kph)

Range: 1,050 miles (1,690km)

Max altitude: 42,000ft (12,800m)

Empty weight: 11,483Ib (5,209kg)

Max take-off weight: 21,000Ib (9,525kg)

 

Armament: Four 20mm AN/M2 cannons (190rpg)

Rockets: Six 127mm HVAR rockets

Bombload: Two 1,000Ib (454kg) bombs

 

Initial production (646 airframes) was the F9F-6, delivered from mid-1952 through July 1954. Armament was four 20 mm (.79 in) M2 cannons in the nose and provision for two 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs or 150 US gal (570 l) drop tanks under the wings. Most were fitted with a UHF homing antenna under the nose, and some were fitted with probes for inflight refuelling. Later redesignated F-9F in 1962. Sixty were built as F9F-6P reconnaissance aircraft with cameras instead of the nose cannon.

 

 

 

Specifications (F9F-7)

 

Type: Naval fighter

Crew: 1

Number built: 168

Length: 41ft 4in (12.65m)

Wingspan: 34ft 6in (10.51m)
Height: 12ft 3in (3.73m)

Engine: One Allison J33-A-16A turbojet generating 5,400Ib of thrust

Max speed: 647mph (1,041kph)

Range: 1,050 miles (1,690km)

Max altitude: 42,000ft (12,800m)

Empty weight: 11,866Ib (5,382kg)

Max take-off weight: 20,098Ib (9,116kg)

 

Armament: Four 20mm AN/M3 cannons (190rpg)

Rockets: Six 127mm HVAR rockets

Bombload: Two 1,000Ib (454kg) bombs

 

F9F-7 referred to the next batch of Cougars that were given the Allison J33 engine instead of the Pratt & Whitney J48, a licensed-built Rolls-Royce Tay. A total of 168 were built, but the J33 proved both less powerful and less reliable than the J48. Almost all were converted to take J48s, and were thus indistinguishable from F9F-6s. These were redesignated F-9H in 1962.

 

 

Specifications (F9F-8)

 

Type: Naval fighter

Crew: 1

Number built: 601

Length: 42ft 1in (12.85m)

Wingspan: 34ft 6in (10.51m)
Height: 12ft 3in (3.73m)

Engine: One Pratt & Whitney J48-P-8A turbojet generating 8,500Ib of thrust

Max speed: 690mph (1,110kph)

Range: 1,050 miles (1,690km)

Max altitude: 42,000ft (12,800m)

Empty weight: 11,866Ib (5,382kg)

Max take-off weight: 20,098Ib (9,116kg)

 

Armament: Four 20mm AN/M3 cannons (190rpg)

Rockets: Six 127mm HVAR rockets

Bombload: Two 1,000Ib (454kg) bombs

 

The F9F-8 was the final fighter version. It featured an 8 in (20 cm) stretch in the fuselage and modified wings with greater chord and wing area, to improve low-speed, high angle of attack flying and to give more room for fuel tanks. 601 aircraft were delivered between April 1954 and March 1957; most were given inflight refuelling probes, and late production were given the ability to carry four AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles under the wings. Most earlier aircraft were modified to this configuration. A number were given nuclear bombing equipment. These were redesignated F-9J in 1962.

 

 

Sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-9_Cougar

http://www.cradleofaviation.org/history/permanent_exhibits/the_jet_age/grumman_f9f-7_cougar.html

http://alternatewars.com/SAC/F9F-6_and_-6P_Cougar_%28J-48-P-8%29_SAC_-_1_July_1953.pdf

Edited October 20, 2015 by slowblade

[CokeSpray 7,274]

Open for discussion. :salute:

 

It appears the F9F-8 has already been suggested,but since I haven't seen it appear lately,I'll leave this one up for the time being.

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

Long as we get earlier Cougars as well.

[Naam54673 1,537]

+1.We need a better naval jet to fight MiG-15s Get more sources and add a poll.

 

I would like to see the other plane that was known as XF9F-8.

[Retry 7,363]

As others have said, why didn't you include the F9F-6 as well?

 

Btw, no Cougar ever hit 690mph.  The closest they ever got was ~660 or so.

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

+1.We need a better naval jet to fight MiG-15s Get more sources and add a poll.

 

I would like to see the other plane that was known as XF9F-8.

Only if we Brit's get this:

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

As others have said, why didn't you include the F9F-6 as well?

 

Btw, no Cougar ever hit 690mph.  The closest they ever got was ~660 or so.

Some sources disagree with you, F9F-8 could, according to one source, 705mp/h

http://www.navalaviationmuseum.org/attractions/aircraft-exhibits/item/?item=f9f_cougar

[Retry 7,363]

My SAC says otherwise.

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

My SAC says otherwise.

Think I'll trust a Museum, rather than a Forum.

[Retry 7,363]

Think I'll trust a Museum, rather than a Forum.

Do tell me how my formerly classified document published on the 15th of April, 1957, whose specifications are approved by the Army, Navy, and Air Force, declassified by the DoD, which states that it derives its performance basis from the contractor's and NATO's flight test data, that lists a boatload of actual figures and numbers such as its gross weight to the nearest pound, gets overruled by three different numbers arbitrarily written in a museum article?

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

Do tell me how my formerly classified document published on the 15th of April, 1957, whose specifications are approved by the Army, Navy, and Air Force, declassified by the DoD, which states that it derives its performance basis from the contractor's and NATO's flight test data, that lists a boatload of actual figures and numbers such as its gross weight to the nearest pound, gets overruled by three different numbers arbitrarily written in a museum article?

Difference between a forum, and a museum.

[Retry 7,363]

-snip-

IT'S NOT A FORUM

It's a Standard Aircraft Characteristics data sheet from the 1950s when the aircraft was actually operating, the entire point of it is to spell out the actual performance of the aircraft in question... Ah, forget, it, you're just the pichutrainer guy.

 

@ OP, use these documents to fill out more accurate and detail for the Cougar in your topic as your heart desires.

F9F-8

F9F-7

 

As a bonus I'll throw in the F9F-6 if you wish to modify your OP to include them.

F9F-6 w/ P-6A Engine

F9F-6 w/ P-8 Engine

 

@ Rest, if you want to nudge at the immovable object, be my guest.  As for me, I'm retiring early tonight.

[Stryker232 174]

+1

[ustinodj 5,952]

+1.We need a better naval jet to fight MiG-15s Get more sources and add a poll.

 

I would like to see the other plane that was known as XF9F-8.

 

I would love the cougar, and then one of the prototype tigers to finish off the line (XF9F-8, F9F-9, or even in the future if War Thunder increases the timeline the F11F Tiger) 

 

 

But Lassar DID confirm one of the  F9F-6/7/8 Cougar variants (XF9F-8 Tiger =/= F9F-8 Cougar) to come into the game, most likely 1.55 (He confirmed this year, but things can happen)

[igeticsu 3,400]

I would like to see those :) mostly because not many people play the F9F considering its a hard plane to fly and with straight wings, its not the best for its BR (before they ruined the top tier BR's)

[Gods_hammer 2,717]

Yes, big yes +1

[Epiica 258]

More variety in top tier jets is always welcome. I'd personnaly prefer these jets over Sabers. Wing intakes for engines is what I like to see (Hunter, Venom, F9F, etc.)

[Retry 7,363]

@OP: The SAC's speed data is given in knots.  So it's 568 knots, or in other words 654 mph.  F9F-8 also needs adjusted according to the standard aircraft characteristics sheet but other than that, looks good!

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

@OP: The SAC's speed data is given in knots.  So it's 568 knots, or in other words 654 mph.  F9F-8 also needs adjusted according to the standard aircraft characteristics sheet but other than that, looks good!

You still haven't linked another source other than Alternate Battles.

 

Also your math is off, 568 knots is 653.64 mph

Edited October 20, 2015 by SqnLdrAhsokaTano

[Retry 7,363]

You still haven't linked another source other than Alternate Battles.

 

Also your math is off, 568 knots is 653.64 mph

I linked the Standard Aircraft Characteristics sheet PDF.  There doesn't need to be another source until Gaijin actually decides to implement the Cougar, in which case we'll need exactly one more source.  It's like NASA: you just don't get much better information than this.

 

The google conversion is stronk with this one.  

Technically there's ~1.15077945 miles/hour per knot, so the conversion should be 653.6427276 miles/hour.  

Except that's wrong too because the speed measurements are accurate to only three significant figures.  Therefore our conversion value cannot be any more accurate than three significant figures.

[TyphoonCro 6,833]

Guys!!

 

Musem page suggests different speed, 705mph (1134kmh)

 

http://www.navalaviationmuseum.org/attractions/aircraft-exhibits/item/?item=f9f_cougar

Edited October 21, 2015 by TyphoonCro

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

Already posted that link, and although more reliable than AlternateHistory.com it's still questionable at best.

[JackTheRipoff 68]

While the US is in need of a better naval jet to finish off the line, I'd rather see the F7U. More variation.

Edited October 22, 2015 by JackTheRipoff

[Retry 7,363]

Guys!!

 

Musem page suggests different speed, 705mph (1134kmh)

 

http://www.navalaviationmuseum.org/attractions/aircraft-exhibits/item/?item=f9f_cougar

Unfortunately the F9F-8 wasn't anywhere near that good.  The model sported a very similar engine to the later F9F-6 at the cost of weight due to (among other things) added fuel capacity, resulting in performance specs that were actually inferior to the late F9F-6 (still better than the early -6 Cougars though).  

While the US is in need of a better naval jet to finish off the line, I'd rather see the F7U. More variation.

The XF7U-1 looks like an interesting jet but I'd restrain from calling it top-tier, while the F7U-1 would simply break top-tier balance.  Plus they have afterburners, which is voodoo territory for Gaijin for some reason.  A few F7U-3s were built without afterburners, but the airframe itself got so heavy that its performance became lack-luster.  It'd probably still be around the top tier, sure, but it'll be rather bricky in comparison to the F7U-1 and XF7U...

[Miki_Hoshii 2,449]

Also Retry, try finding a source other than Alternate History, I did try and hint that your source is questionable, to please do try and find another, even if it is the same document, and looking at my Status Message, no a Document is not a source, the source is the website it comes from.

 

But I doubt you will, you certainly aren't the sharpest tool in the shed.

Standard Aircraft Characteristics are documentation from the military... If you want to go look at some libraries in say DC, im sure you'd find em somewhere. A Document is a source btw, its a primary source on top of that. 

 

"A primary source is a document or physical object which was written or created during the time under study. These sources were present during an experience or time period and offer an inside view of a particular event."