# Was the Bearcat as good as the Late War Japanese fighters?



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 8, 2006)

Hmm.........but this poll is for the experts like you guys. Not in my territory.

I had heard it set the record for fastest piston powered aircraft at 528 mph. On Wikipedia it says the Corsair was "marginally faster." 

Could a Corsair have beat the Bearcat's record?

One thing about the Bearcat. It looks like a bootleg copy of a FW. Which it is. In some ways it takes away from it's speciality.


----------



## plan_D (May 8, 2006)

In terms of combat, it certainly was as good if not better. But it was a fleet defence fighter and lacked the range of most other Pacific planes. It basically was a big engine with wings, and still holds the time to climb record for a piston plane, to 10,000 feet.


----------



## syscom3 (May 8, 2006)

It was a shipboard anti-kamikazi interceptor.

It didnt need the range as the Corsair and Hellcat.


----------



## timshatz (May 8, 2006)

The Bearcat also had an advantage in reliability and structural strength. Grumman was famous for making very sturdy machines and the Bearcat was no different. But beyond that, the American warmaking capicity was far and away greater than Japans by 1944-45. Not only in design, but in materials of manufacture and quality of workmanship. 

All points noted above will affect an aircraft in more than a marginal way. But focusing on the materials and workmanship, the quality of both of them defines the changeout time for an engine by up to a factor of 4. When an R-2800 might not have to be changed for a 100 hours, whereas the Mitsubishi Ha-112 might have to be changed out in 25-50 hours due to materials substitution affecting the wear of critical parts. Also, fit and finish was definitely affected in the Japanese war industry as the war came to a close. One only see the difference between the Arisaka rifles in the begining of the war and the "Last Ditch" models produced in 1945 to get a good idea of this point. 

About design, the Japanese fighters towards the end of the war were just working into the realm of 1500+ Hp engines (Ex. KI-100) whereas the US had been producing aircraft with reliable 2000 Hp engines since '42. And not a just a few, tens of thousands of them (P47, F6F, ect). The Japanese, while they made some beautiful aircraft that did their jobs well, could never really compete on the long run with a country that had an industrial componet 5 to 10 times greater. They could produce a few very good aircraft, but not the thousands, or even tens of thousands needed to take on the B29 and Fast Carrier fleets.


----------



## syscom3 (May 8, 2006)

One neat thing about the Bearcat was the wing tips were deisgned to break off under high gee's.


----------



## evangilder (May 8, 2006)

Only in the original design. That was later removed.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 8, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> One neat thing about the Bearcat was the wing tips were deisgned to break off under high gee's.




Why was it designed to do that? plz explain


----------



## timshatz (May 8, 2006)

Here's a link on a pilot's reaction to flying the Bearcat. Has a paragraph in there saying the tips were made to release under high Gs during aerobatic manuvers. Not sure why, probably seemed like a good idea at the time. Kind of odd, when you think about it. Anyway, the tips used to come off asymetrically, leaving one on and one off. Big problem. They dumped the idea. Sounds like it didn't make it past the test pilot stage. Good article. 

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182122-1.html


----------



## lesofprimus (May 8, 2006)

Nice link...


----------



## syscom3 (May 8, 2006)

Thats a cool link about the Bearcat


----------



## SHOOTER (May 9, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> Why was it designed to do that? plz explain



The tips were designed to shear off under 9G load to prevent the center section of the wing from exceeding it's load factor! Thus if the pilot pulled back on the stick to much at high speed the tips would fail and leave the rest of the plain to return home. This was done to save a lot of weight.


----------



## evangilder (May 9, 2006)

That article was written by John Deakin, who was the wing safety officer at our wing of the CAF for awhile. Hell of a nice guy, and a good writer as well. If you search on that site, he has many articles on different aircraft. He has a book out now too, filled with his stories called "Full Throttle". You can check out some info on John and his book here:
http://www.aeromedix.com/index.php?...1eacbce018c5dc73367bd7&action=sku&sku=bkfullt


----------



## elmilitaro (May 9, 2006)

Nice.


----------



## timshatz (May 9, 2006)

Pretty wild that a 21 year old was flying P51s and F8Fs in the same way a kid would be flying C-150s or Piper Tomahawks today. Without military training, he must've been one helluva pilot to handle those things. That is a ton of torque, no hydraulic help on the controls and a very busy cockpit to worry about. Especially the Bearcat. Even though it was a Carrier bird (and probably had decent low speed handling) it still packed a lot of weight on short wings with a honkin' big engine up front. Don't know what the wing loading was but it had to be pretty high. 

All those last generation piston engined fighters looked like they took a lot of attention to detail to fly. Bearcat, Griffon Engined Spit, Tempest and Fury must've had a high pucker factor just getting into the cockpit.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 9, 2006)

My Grandfather flew the Bearcat twice, after the Japanese surrender, and I remember him on a few occasions saying that had the Corsair flown like the Bearcat, he would have scored more than the 8 kills he was credited with, but that the design of the Corsair saved his life several times, so...........

He was honored to have flown the F4U...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## R Leonard (May 10, 2006)

F8F Bureau Numbers were:
F8F-1 90437-90459 [23]
XF8F-1 90460-90461 [2]
F8F-1 94752-95048 [297]
XF8F-2 95049 [1]
F8F-1 95050-95329 [280]
XF8F-1 95330 [1]
F8F-1 95331-96751 (95499-96751 canceled) [168]
F8F-1 100001-102000 (all canceled) [0]
F3M-1 109273-111148 (all canceled) [0]
F8F-1 112529-114528 (all canceled) [0]
F8F-1 121463-121522 [60]
F8F-2 121523-121792 [270]
F8F-1B 122087-122152 [66]
F8F-2 122614-122708 [95]

Total 1263 procured.

As I understand it, had the war continued, the F6F's on the CVs and CVLs were to be replaced by F8Fs. The FM-2s on the CVEs were to be replaced by the displaced F6Fs which were, ultimately, to be again replaced by additional F8Fs. Note that there were a total of 5253 F8F-1s plus the 1876 F3M-1s (total 7129) in the canceled contracts; more than enough to fill both combat and training requirements for that plan.

Record short take offs were on November 22, 1946 at the Cleveland Air Races where F8F-1 pilots from TacTest set back-to-back US climb-to-time records. “Operation Pogo Stick" was conducted as a demonstration at the Cleveland Air Race, November 22, 1946. An F8F-1 piloted by Comdr. Bill Leonard set a time to climb record, from a dead stop to 10K feet in 100 seconds, including a 150 foot take off run. Unfortunately, he didn't get to keep the record very long. Lieut. Comdr. Butch Davenport came along about 30 minutes later and set the next new record of 97.8 seconds, also in an F8F-1 with a 115-foot take off run. Leonard's take off was into an estimated 30 knot head wind, by the time Davenport took off the head wind was over 40 knots.

The F8F’s used were the standard Navy aircraft, armed but without ammunition and carrying 50% fuel. The planes were modified to allow full emergency military power with the landing gear down, something the safety locks did not normally allow. A further modification was the installation of a piece of equipment, oddly enough, called a “theater” behind the pilot. This was a small instrument board, about one foot square, that had as it’s most important feature a movie camera that recorded time, altitude, and various goings on in the cockpit. National Aeronautic Association personnel calibrated this camera for the attempts at the Cleveland Air Show. The camera was actuated thusly: The pilot taxied the airplane to his starting point and flipped a switch to activate the camera. At that point, when the pilot releases his brakes, another switch is automatically thrown and the camera starts recording events. These pilots and airplanes were from TacTest where testing airplane performance was what they did. Cdr Leonard was TACTEST projects officer. Lt Cdr Davenport was the F8F project officer. The list of airplanes operating at TACTEST in the 1945-1950 period is lengthy and included German, Japanese, and British types, as well as American. It was not unusual to have this “theater” equipment installed in a TACTEST aircraft as a matter of course and it was test pilots’ job to push their mounts to the limit.

The rapid climb to altitude was the F8F's bread and butter. The plane was to have been the solution to the kamikaze problem ... rapid climb capability, firepower, speed, and more (better) maneuverability than the F6F or F4U. 

I’ve heard folks claim that Leonard and Davenport pretty well trashed the engines on their planes, but that is not so. This was not a spur of the moment stunt ". . . Hey, let’s go up to Cleveland . . . I hear they’re having an Air Race today . . . Maybe we can set a record of some kind". Actually they’d been practicing back at Patuxent with the same planes used in Cleveland, doing four or five practice runs each in these same planes. After the demonstration they flew those same planes back to TACTEST.

A little competition being good for the soul, the question once arose: Which was the best performing airplane, the jet-driven FJ-1 or the time-tested Bearcat. Cdr. Peter “Sweet Pete” Aurand, of VF-51 (formerly VF-5A), was not about to concede the capabilities of his squadron’s Furies to anyone. As a result, Bearcats from VFs 113 and 53 squared off with Aurand’s FJs and conducted five tests, the results of which follow. 

First test: Two FJs and two F8Fs participated in a climb test from a standing start. The F8Fs were to use water injection but, due to malfunctioning, could only do so for a few minutes after takeoff. The best of the two Bearcats beat the two best FJs to 15,000 feet by more than a minute. 

Second test: A zoom climb test was conducted with the two plane types. Both stabilized speed at full power at 1,000 feet. On signal, they commenced a climb. The FJ beat the Bearcat to 10,000 feet by 13 seconds. The F8F stalled trying to catch up with the jet going on to 15,000 feet.

Third test: Two weeks later, VF-51 pitted a Fury against a Bearcat at NAS San Diego to race to 25,000 feet above El Toro, 63 miles away. The FJ-1 arrived a minute and 40 seconds before the propeller plane.

Fourth test: This one simulated catapult launching climb performance. At 500 feet in flight with gear and flaps down, a climb was started on signal. The timing was stopped accidentally when the stop clock in the F8F became inoperative. The test was inconclusive but VF-51 said it felt the jet would have won this one, too.

Fifth test: A simultaneous takeoff was made. The Bearcat gained about 5,000 feet while the Fury was still on the ground and therefore could make a gunnery run on the jet immediately, if desired. In the test, the F8F got airborne and immediately pulled up to make the first pass. On the second pass, it fell behind the FJ and in the final race to 10,000 feet the FJ won by seven seconds and further increased its lead 15 seconds in climbing to 15,000 feet.

Designations:
XF8F-1: Experimental version of F8F-1.
XF8F-1N: Experimental version of the F8F-1 converted as a night fighter.
XF8F-2: Experimental version of the F8F-2.
F8F-1: 
Specifications for the F8F-1 were:
Length - 27 ft 8 in
Height - 12 ft 2 in
Span - open 35 ft 6 in; folded 23 ft 9 in
Wing area - 244 sq ft
Weights - empty 7,323 lbs; combat 9,672 lbs
Range - 217 nautical miles (combat)
Engine - Pratt Whitney 2100 hp R-2800-34W
Ordnance – bombs - 2,000 lbs; guns - four .50 cal. fixed in wings
F8F-1B: F8F-1 with four 20 mm cannon vice .50 cal.
F8F-1N: F8F-1 converted for night fighting.
F8F-2: F8F-1 powered by Pratt Whitney R2800-30W; 20 mm cannon vice .50 cal. 
F8F-2N: F8F-2 converted for night fighting.
F8F-2P: F8F-2 equipped for photographic reconnaissance.
F8F-1D: F8F-1converted for use as a drone control plane.
F8F-2D: F8F-2 converted for use as a drone control plane.

Photos relating to TACTEST and Operation Pogostick:

First photo shows some of the staff from TACTEST. There are some interesting folks in this photo. Left to right, Cdr Bill Martin was the guru of night operations doing pioneering work in night strike operations in the Pacific during WWII flying some 400 night attack sorties. Lt Cdr Jim Davidson was the first naval aviator to land and take off the first pure carrier designed jet fighter, the FD-1, from a carrier on July 26, 1946. Lt Cdr Peter Bolt was a fighter pilot with combat experience in bth the European and Pacific Theaters. Bill Leonard was an ace who flew in VF-42, VF-3 and VF-11; after duty at TACTEST he commanded VF-171 when it became the first jet squadron to be carrier qualified. Butch Davenport was also an ace flying in VF-17. The aircraft in the background are (L) a Ryan FR-1 Fireball and (R) a Grumman F8F-1. When they first started looking into achieving a climb to time record they looked into using the Ryan, but decided that the Grumman would be better for the attempt. Davidson and Bolt were the back-up pilots for the project.

Next photo is Cdr. Bill Leonard standing in front of F8F-1 B/N 94880. This was the plane he used in his climb to time try.

Last is a side view of F8F-1 B/N 94880.

Regards,

Rich

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2006)

Very, very cool!!!!


----------



## lesofprimus (May 10, 2006)

Very detailed info RL..... Good work...


----------



## syscom3 (May 11, 2006)

I wonder if there were any matchups between the Bearcats and Seafuries?


----------



## evangilder (May 11, 2006)

Great info Rich! Here's a couple of shots of one of the survivors.


----------



## Gnomey (May 11, 2006)

Good stuff Rich! Nice pics too Eric.


----------



## timshatz (May 11, 2006)

Very good read Rich.

BTW, anybody got 1.8M lying around?

http://www.controller.com/listings/...1103633&guid=2A669FA4387D4BC3A93D5AD26E0D3A3E


----------



## ozumn (May 12, 2006)

Nice stuff, i love that plane its brutal.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 12, 2006)

ozumn said:


> i love that plane its brutal.


Thats strange, seeing how the Bearcat is an American made aircraft, not some Swedish POS......


----------



## Hunter368 (May 12, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> Thats strange, seeing how the Bearcat is an American made aircraft, not some Swedish POS......




lol Les didn't Sweden give USA the plans to make the Bearcat? Wasn't it made from Swedish iron ore? lol


----------



## lesofprimus (May 12, 2006)

No, but if Im not mistaken, and maybe R Leonard could shed some light, but wasnt each Bearcat sent off the production line with some big breasted Swedish bimbo rubbing her boobs on each cowling???


----------



## R Leonard (May 12, 2006)

I can neither confirm nor deny that production process.



Rich


----------



## davparlr (May 12, 2006)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> Hmm.........but this poll is for the experts like you guys. Not in my territory.
> 
> I had heard it set the record for fastest piston powered aircraft at 528 mph. On Wikipedia it says the Corsair was "marginally faster."
> 
> ...



Which in turn, the FW looks like a bootleg copy of the Hughes H-1, which some people claim it was, along with the Zero.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 15, 2006)

So we Americans just took our own design back.

Pretty interesting.


----------



## timshatz (May 15, 2006)

Or all designs evolve towards a distinctive shape which is similar. Assuming (I know that's generally where the problems start, "Assuming" anything, but for the sake of arguement...) speed is the greatest asset of piston engined fighter from the Second World War, then Radial engine fighters all head towards the same shape (with alterations based on design parameters). 

It will have the largest engine possible up front to give the absolute maximum in horsepower, thinnest wings (no Hurricane Wings, closer to Laminar Flow, aka P51A wings) to reduce drag but give the lift needed, bubble canopy (see them before they see you), heavy armaments (higher the speed, less time you have to get a shot in hence the more heavy slugs in the air at one time increasing the chances of critical damage), armor and survivability equipment (inert gasses pumped into the fuel tanks, CO2 or other fire extinguishers, emergency release equipment- sometimes even a hachet!) and wide track gear to make landings easier on low time pilots (and the high time too!).

What you end up with is a fast, manuverable (high roll rate), heavily armed and relatively heavy aircraft. The Tempest, Fury, Bearcat, Ki-100 and Lagg-9 are all similar in appearance. 

I think the early war aircraft all had a distictiveness that was based on differing design philosophies (for instance radial engined aircraft such as the F4F, the Skua, Zero and P36 all showed a design philosophy reflecting biases or requirements of the 30s where aircraft were more elegant than in the middle 40s-imho). By the time the end of the war had come around, radial engined aircraft were built much more functionally than their predecessors. They were, for the most part, disposable. As such, form followed function. 

Same thing held true with the inlines but not to the degree of development. Seems inlines (in fighter aircraft) pretty much stopped in developement at the end of the war. Whereast the radials continued to be developed (mostly for COIN or Ground Attack) the inlines were replaced by turboprops. Probably the ability of a radial to absorb damage gave it another 20 years of design life. 

Again, IMHO.


----------



## davparlr (May 16, 2006)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> So we Americans just took our own design back.
> 
> Pretty interesting.



I just saw a Military Channel story on the FW190. It said that Kurt Tank was very impressed by the H-1. The Fw190 does take some design features from the H-1. Most noticable is the landing gear and the radial engine and general layout. The H-1 was an amazing aircraft and could do 353 mph in 1935. Compare that to contempory military aircraft. I believe it surpassed the previous airspeed record by 40 mph or so.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 16, 2006)

Tanks use of the radial was because of the non-availability of the inline DB's that were being sucked up by the Bf 109 production lines...


----------



## davparlr (May 16, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> Tanks use of the radial was because of the non-availability of the inline DB's that were being sucked up by the Bf 109 production lines...



That's true, but I think the success with H-1 gave him confidence that the radial would work for a fighter. That was an unpopular configuration in the Luftwaffe. He tried to improve the NACA design for engine enclosure, but his design was unsuccessful and resorted to a common design. Also of note, the BMW engine was a Pratt and Witney built under license, probably modifed by BMW.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 16, 2006)

> but I think the success with H-1 gave him confidence that the radial would work for a fighter.


I agree...


----------



## bogy (May 19, 2006)

I am not sure that the Bearcat was more good then a Nakajima Ki 84 Hayate "Frank". Ki 84 was the bestes aircraft in a final part of ww2.


----------



## syscom3 (May 19, 2006)

bogy said:


> I am not sure that the Bearcat was more good then a Nakajima Ki 84 Hayate "Frank". Ki 84 was the bestes aircraft in a final part of ww2.



The Ki-84 was equivelant to what the allies had in mid 1944. 

The Japanese were always one generation behind the allies in designs and it got worse thoughout 1945.


----------



## R Leonard (May 19, 2006)

bogy said:


> I am not sure that the Bearcat was more good then a Nakajima Ki 84 Hayate "Frank". Ki 84 was the bestes aircraft in a final part of ww2.



You’re kidding, right? Don’t get me wrong, I think the Ki-84 series was one of the best the Japanese produced, certainly the most elegant in looks and its performance statistics weren’t too shabby either, but out performing an F8F? No, sorry. Syscom3 has accurately identified the problem for the Japanese. For a variety of reasons they were behind the curve on development from late 1942 on. 

Rich


----------



## timshatz (May 19, 2006)

Think Rlenord and SYS got it right. The Japanese never really had the industrial base to develop a full range of aircraft in a timely fashion. They could and did design great aircraft (A6M, Ki100 and Ki84 were excellent examples of that ability) but lacked the resources and production capacity to flood the skies with these aircraft. A step behind in design due to lack of assets to allocate to the design and just way behind in producing adequate numbers of those they did design. Add to that problems with fit and finish, shortage of maintainence personel and equipment when in the field and you see them slipping farther and farther behind in their ability to affect the course of a battle and finally, the outcome of the war. 

Add to all that the B29s bombing their factories and it is one seriously losing proposition.


----------

