Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I love the Hornet / Sea Hornet. Aesthetically, for me, it is a winner and far better-looking than even the Mosquito. Many might dsiagree but there is no "right" or "wrong" for what is a good looking plane.
Rate of climb-wise, it is very good, but would never maneuver with a Bearcat. The wing loading for the Sea hornet F Mk.III is about 57.9 pounds per square foot at 20,893 pounds and the power loading is 5.0 pounds per HP. For the F8F-2, the wing loading is about 39.3 pounds per HP at 9,600 pounds and the power loading is about 4.36 pounds per HP. So the wing loading is about 32% better for the Bearcat and the power loading is about 13% better, with both of these at normal takeoff weight. No dount this might change slightly at best combat weight.
An F8F-2 at WER will exceed 6,000 fpm. If not, how DID they set that 1946 record of zero to 10,000 feet in 94 seconds with a stock Navy aircraft?
Sorry, don't buy it for an F.3. I havent researched an F.1 and probably won't, but the HP will certainly drop into the 1,770 or so range down from 2,030.
The "light weight" above doesn't even allow for fuel weight, much less ammunition, pilot, oil, ADI, etc.
I believe they were clean, no racks, and did the switch mod, too ... though that could be quite dangerous since you'd probably run out of rudder on takeoff if you stayed in the power. Probably had to reduce pwoer until the airspeed caught up with the rudder authority.
An F8F-2 at WER will exceed 6,000 fpm. If not, how DID they set that 1946 record of zero to 10,000 feet in 94 seconds with a stock Navy aircraft?