Goodyear F2G vs Grumman F8F Bearcat

I am often amazed at the contortions exercised by those, who were probably, at best, babes in arms at the time of events past, or, more likely, not even a gleam in someone's eye, to denigrate or cast aspersions, in of course their apparent expert opinion, when the events in question do not meet their preconceived notions. It is certainly gratifying to see so many skilled F8F drivers and experienced military/naval test pilots wade in with their insights. And that is about as polite as I can put it.

Let see . . . entries from Leonard pilot's log book for November 1946 . . .

5 Nov - - F8F-1 b/n 90438 - - pilot remarks: "test climb to 10000. 2:15 to get up 1:55 to get down (wheels touching)"

8 Nov - - F8F-1 b/n 94803 - - pilot remarks: "test climb 2 mins 15 secs to 10000 from standing start - military power"

8 Nov - - F8F-1 b/n 90438 - - pilot remarks: "test for combat power. Torquemeter reading 113 and 108"

15 Nov - - F8F-1 b/n 94880 - - pilot remarks: "test combat power and general handling for climb test. 1 climb 10000 ft - 2 min"

20 Nov - - F8F-1 b/n 94880 - - pilot remarks: "Patux to Cleveland on Air Show Duty. Operation Pogo Stick"

22 Nov - - F8F-1 b/n 94880 - - pilot remarks: "climb standing start to 10000 feet 1 min 40 seconds record take off 150 feet"

As an aside, at the completion of this particular flight, Leonard had totaled 1681.6 hours. 635.3 of those were recorded in a log book lost aboard USS Yorktown in June 1942. Of the 1046.3 Midway-forward hours, all but 92.3 were in fighter types. His first flight in an F8F was on 22 Dec 1945 at NAS Patuxent, oddly enough, in b/n 90438 mentioned above.

And no, contrary to one apparent expert opinion, this was not a hold a stop watch in the other hand as the plane passes through 10000 feet.

Behind the pilot was installed a piece of equipment called a "theater". 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. This camera was calibrated by NAA personnel for the attempts at the Cleveland Air Show. By reviewing the film it was relatively academic to determine the time take to reach 10000 feet or 3000 meters, which ever you wanted to look at. 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. Simple, eh? These pilots and airplanes were from TacTest where testing airplane performance was what they did. The list of airplanes they were operating in the 1945-1950 period is lengthy and included German, Japanese, British as well as American. It was not unusual to have this "theater" equipment installed as a matter of course and it was their job to push their mounts to the limit.

Years ago, having tired of dealing with experts, an inquiry made to the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale produced the following from Thierry Montigneaux, Assistant Secretary General of the at FAI:

"The 'time to climb' record category was proposed to FAI by the National Aeronautic Association of the USA at the June 1950 FAI General Conference. It was then added to the Sporting Code.

"The first mention of a 'time to climb' world record in our books was for a flight made by a British pilot onboard a Gloster Meteor on 31th August 1951.

"No performance set in 1946 could therefore have qualified as an official 'world' record, as this category of record did not exist then. However, it may well be that the NAA had accepted a category of 'national records' for time-to-climb prior to their June 1950 proposal to FAI."

So, in 1946 there was no "World Record" class for climb to time. No wonder no one can find one.

An inquiry to the National Aeronautic Association produced this response from Art Greenfield, Director, Contest and Records:

"It's difficult to determine from the file, but the U.S. national record in 1946 was either 'Fastest Climb to 10,000 Feet,' or 'Time to Climb 3,000 Meters.' The switch from feet to meters occurred around that time, presumably to gain acceptance from the international community at FAI.

"In any event, both performances were calculated and the time to 10,000 feet was 97.8 seconds; the time to 3,000 meters (9,843 feet) was 96.1 seconds.

"The record I quoted was set by LCDR M.W. Davenport in a Bearcat on November 22, 1946, in Cleveland."

And lastly, one evening before his passing, whilst pondering the remains of dinner, I took the opportunity to raise this subject of this long ago event with Bill Leonard, the same Cdr. Leonard who made the attempt prior to Davenport's record. He confirmed that the only performance modification to the F8F's was to bypass the safety lock on the emergency war power setting to allow water injection with the landing gear in the down position. These were standard F8F's. His plane was armed, with ammo, armor in place, and loaded with 50% fuel. Butch Davenport's F8F was configured the same only without the ammunition.

Last, obviously, I have the log book where Leonard's flight is recorded.

Good enough? Sorry if that doesn't match an expert analysis of internet posted performance statistics, I can't help that. Guess short of being there (and I wasn't even a gleam at the time), an official record as recorded in a pilots log and a statement from the NAA records guy will just have to do.

I've been waiting for you to chime in! Thanks for the post, as usual you're a wealth of knowledge and an asset to this forum. Your participation is highly appreciated!!!!!

Thanks R Leonard for sharing that and we all appreciate your input, especially from both the logbook and from personal recollections.

Thanks Indeed, I especially was moved by your dinner anecdote as much as your post's technical content. May I say it's a gift beyond price to have a son who exhibits respect and a keen interest in the history his father both lived and made.

R Leonard said:

8 Nov - - F8F-1 b/n 94803 - - pilot remarks: test climb 2 mins 15 secs to 10000 from standing start - military power
It's difficult to determine from the file, but the U.S. national record in 1946 was either ;Fastest Climb to 10,000 Feet,Time to Climb 3,000 Meters. The switch from feet to meters occurred around that time, presumably to gain acceptance from the international community at FAI.
...
In any event, both performances were calculated and the time to 10,000 feet was 97.8 seconds; the time to 3,000 meters (9,843 feet) was 96.1 seconds.
...
The record I quoted was set by LCDR M.W. Davenport in a Bearcat on November 22, 1946, in Cleveland."
...
He confirmed that the only performance modification to the F8F was to bypass the safety lock on the emergency war power setting to allow water injection with the landing gear in the down position. These were standard F8F. His plane was armed, with ammo, armor in place, and loaded with 50% fuel. Butch Davenport's F8F was configured the same only without the ammunition.

Good enough? Sorry if that doesn't match an expert analysis of internet posted performance statistics

Click to expand...

Certainly enough for me, and I was wrong.
After actually doing some calculations of the climb rate with my spreadsheet I think now that the climb rate is perfectly possible, calculating with a weight of 9045 lb (F8F-1 with half fuel), with a average power rating between 0-10,000 ft, MIL=2000hp and combat(wet) rating of 2,800 hp.

Going back to the original question, the F2G was about 2500 lbs heavier by empty weight than the F8F but didn't seem to provide any advantage in performance. The F8F seemed to be the best choice. In reality, both planes had been bypassed by technology and even the F8F was soon displaced by jets. Due to performance requirements of carrier operations, the Navy jets lagged behind performance of of land based aircraft until some advances in engine technology, and possibly carrier design, did the Navy field some really great jet fighters that took a back seat to no one, starting with the magnificent (one of my favorite aircraft) F8U.

The F2G didn't perform as well as hoped and the F4U-5 wound up doing anything the F2G could and more.

The F8F was replaced on carrier decks by the F4U, not by jets. The F8F was not as good air to ground as the F4U-Linnekin, "80 Knots to Mach Two)

The title of this thread is Goodyear F2G vs. FF Bearcat. It has been conclusively proven that the bearcat performed better as a fighter or as an interceptor.

They made 10 Goodyear F2G Corsairs and about 1,265 F8F Bearcats. So you already KNOW which one was better in the eyes of the Navy.

The reason the Bearcat was retired had nothing whatsoever to do with the Corsair being "Better". The Jet age was here and they had a very large inventory of Corsairs, and not many Bearcats. They elected to cease piston fighter production, go with the existing F4U Corsairs for piston duties, and get some value from the few Bearcats by selling them to France and Siam. That is from several former Navy pilots during that time when they gave presentations at the Planes of Fame. To a man, they all preferred the Bearcat, but you have to fly what the navy has on line at the time since there aren't other aircraft avaialble as an alternate mount.

The number of Corsairs in good shape, the number of spare parts, and the available trained manpower were the deciding factors. If the war had continued, the Beaercats would have been in combat pronto, believe me. But it didn't and they were sold off to foreign governments while they still had some value.

renrich said:

The F8F was replaced on carrier decks by the F4U, not by jets. The F8F was not as good air to ground as the F4U-Linnekin, "80 Knots to Mach Two)

Click to expand...

I believe the main purpose of the F8F was fleet defense fighter. By the time the F8F was being phased out in the late 40s early fifties I doubt the F4U was taking over that role. Most sites rightly or wrongly state that the F8F was replaced by the F9F and F2H.

davparlr said:

I believe the main purpose of the F8F was fleet defense fighter. By the time the F8F was being phased out in the late 40s early fifties I doubt the F4U was taking over that role. Most sites rightly or wrongly state that the F8F was ultimately replaced by the F9F and F2H.

Click to expand...

That is my understanding as well. Although the McDonnell FH1 and -2 and Grumman F9F-2 evidently began entering service starting around about the Fall of 1947 to late summer 1948 (for the FH-2). During the interim between the end of WW2 and these aircraft coming on line, 24 squadrons of F8F bearcats were in service to provide carrier air defense. During that period, the navy tried to enter the jet age with the procurement of limited quantities of Ryan FR-1 Fireball, North American FJ-1 Furies and FH-1 Phantom 1.

Side note on the F9F, those of you who saw Top Gun may be interested to know the fictional events depicted in the film have an actual counterpart that was perhaps the inspiration for the plot although that would perhaps give Hollywood far more credit than it deserves for putting history on celluloid. On November 18, 1952, a division of 4 USN F9F-5s from reserve squadron Vf-781 of the Oriskany's air wing were jumped by 7 Mig 15s. A detailed account is provided at:

F9F-5 Panther Pilot Bags 3 MIGs

I stand corrected (somewhat) Linnekin who flew the Bearcat operationally, states that the Midway class carriers retained the F4Us in their VFB and VF squadrons. The smaller carriers ( Essex class) flew Bearcats. " By late 1948 the VFB squadrons started to reverting to Corsairs. With the advent of the first jets and the Korean War, the remaining Bearcats were removed from service and turned over to the reserves." My memory, along with some other equipment is becoming worn out.

renrich said:

I stand corrected (somewhat) Linnekin who flew the Bearcat operationally, states that the Midway class carriers retained the F4Us in their VFB and VF squadrons. The smaller carriers ( Essex class) flew Bearcats. " By late 1948 the VFB squadrons started to reverting to Corsairs. With the advent of the first jets and the Korean War, the remaining Bearcats were removed from service and turned over to the reserves." My memory, along with some other equipment is becoming worn out.

Click to expand...

I think you may be correct after all. Let's look at the numbers. 24 VF squadrons (at 24 aircraft per squadron) may be embarked on 24 carriers, with dial role F4U's and attack ADs, along with TBFs and Grumman Guardians to provide the AEW and ASW role (airborne early warning and Anti-Sub Warfare) and fill out the airwing. I don't believe all of the 24 Essex class were in commission post war, but the big three CVB's were and all three operating by about 1947-48 and some of the light carriers as wel during this periodl. I wouldn't be surprised, considering the number of available flight decks, that F4U's were still in service providing an air defense role on number of carriers. I would expect Linnekin to be an authority on this topic. My inclination is to defer to your memory of what he reported.

I keep pushing Linnekin's book on this forum to the point that some may think I get a slice of the profit. Not true! His book is highly readable, informative, sometimes funny and it provides the reader with information about flying which enlightens a non veteran pilot ( which I am) about some of the real truth about air combat. In other words all the performance statistics which we read about and joyfully proclaim as the reason that our favorite fighter of WW2 is the uber fighter are not necessarily the deciding factor. An example is when he was engaged in a mock "dog fight" with an A4 while Linnekin was in an airplane he had much operational experience in, the F8U. No contest, right? wrong! In that tactical situation, Linnekin could not gain the advantage.

renrich said:

An example is when he was engaged in a mock "dog fight" with an A4 while Linnekin was in an airplane he had much operational experience in, the F8U. No contest, right? wrong! In that tactical situation, Linnekin could not gain the advantage.

Click to expand...

Not too big a surprise. A4 Skooters have been used as ersatz fighters by some foreign navy's operating small carriers with small airwings. During the Vietnam unpleasantness, an A-4 took out a Mig-17 with a Zuni air-to-ground rocket. I believe there were even a few a2a kills of migs by the venerable A-1.

Even the A-6, which would appear to be rather ungainly in a dog fight was not at a complete disadvantage. F-4 ACM teams providing A-6 and EA-6B aircrew with ACM experience claimed it had some significant A2A advantages if (it was able to avoid a vertical fight???) and fight more to its strengths (although, truth be told, I don't recall many strengths except for the wing which as I recall gave it a fair amount of relatively low speed manueverability.) As I recall, it was a dog above about 30,000 ft.

I never knew an A-6 ever GOT to 30,000 feet!

Same for the F-111.

I have a very good friend who restified at a Congressional hearing about the F-111.

He was asked is the F-111 was any good above 30,000 feet. he responded that he didn't know. The only time he fever got above 1,500 feet was when he needed to refuel. He was told that Congress was informed the view from the cockpit was not good and he responded that he didn't really know since he usually flew at 2:00 am in the monring when it was dark. He was aksed if it was fast and said it was the only plane in the US inventory, as far as he knew, that could pull a 6-g turn for 45 seconds and still be supersonic. He added that he wanted to be in an F-111 if asked to attack ANYTHING outside the USA.

I have a good friend who flew an evaluation fight between an A6 and a captured Mig 21 during the war in VN. He said that their intel about the Mig was mostly inaccurate and that it was hopeless unless he got very low and hoped to run the Mig out of fuel.

renrich said:

I have a good friend who flew an evaluation fight between an A6 and a captured Mig 21 during the war in VN. He said that their intel about the Mig was mostly inaccurate and that it was hopeless unless he got very low and hoped to run the Mig out of fuel.

Click to expand...

IIRC That sounds pretty much like the same advice given to PBY pilots encountering A6M's early in WW2... I bet it would work about as good.

Except the PBY crew could at least shoot back.

and the A-6 couldn't shoot anything at all (at least until late in the war when I've heard some were carrying sidewinders just in case or perhaps like a scare crow?)


Rich, did your dad ever talk about the relative quality of the F2A-1, -2 or -3 vs the F4F-3 and F4F-4? I don't know if you've posted on this topic before but would be very interested to know anything he might have said on this topic.