Goodyear F2G vs Grumman F8F Bearcat

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
It was a real possibility when it was being developed, but the war situation (winding down to a win) coupled with jet developments spelled its demise. It COULD have been the Skyraider of the future, but the Skyradier is one of my all-time favorites, so I'm glad the F8B didn't win that one.

The Skyraider spec produced four contending airframes, and I have no idea why the F8B was never considered for the role. It had good capabilities and would have been formidable with six 20 mm wing-mounted cannons. It was also 100 mph faster than the Skyraider. I'm sure SOMEBODY knows the story.
 
GregP said:
Sure it could. All it had to do was fly for 400 miles and the Bearcat would be out of fuel.

That would leave the F8B with only another 2,000+ miles of range to do something with the 6,400 pounds of bombs it was carrying.
Click to expand...

I thought we were talking about climb performance?
 
Here's a thought. Why is time to climb always measured from the ground to 10000 feet? Of course the Bearcat is gonna win that race every time. How about comparing the Beacat to a P-51 in a climb comparison from 20000 to 30000 feet? That would be a different story....
 
Last edited:
A lot of the climbs to altitude had to do with interceptions. How long would it take for a fighter sitting on the ground to reach the altitude that the bombers were flying. Cross that time with the speed of the bombers and you know how far away you have to detect the bombers in order to intercept before they reach the target. Please remember that radar was by no means universal in the early years of WW II.
Patrolling at 20,000ft if you expect bombers at 30,000ft isn't really done even though such a performance number is a better indicator of "combat potential" in the 20-30,000ft range.

Combat potential in the sense of regaining altitude for a second attack, for acceleration after slowing down after maneuvers, of surplus power allowing the plane to keep up ( or not loose as much) speed in a turn.
 

It happened; whether you think it was plausible or not is irrelevant.
 

Go Back to post 61.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...s-grumman-f8f-bearcat-33022-5.html#post911193
 
I can explain that easily. They cannot take off at full power. The torque will overcome the rudder and aileron control. Most warbirds takeoff ar reduced power anyway. They usually can only go to full power once they reach a speed where the rudder and ailerons can counteract the torque. When I asked Stave Hinton Jr. about the Reno racer Strega, he said he usually took off at greatly reduced power and never got to full power until descending into the race track for the green flag.

Rare Bear's takeoff is generally longer than any stock Bearcat since the span and hence the ailerons are shorter than stock. The extra power comes in at high speed, not at low speeds. The engine and props historically fitted to Rare Bear generate much more torque than a standard Bearcat and require more careful handling at lower speedsm particularly on or around the runway.

The procedure is simple you can only feed power in until the nose wanders to the left with full right rudder. Then you have to back off until the nose comes back and can then add a touch more power as long as the nose stays straight. Any more power and you will be torque-turned off the runway. Once airborne, you can increase power only until the nose moves left against full right rudder or you start a slow left roll against full right aileron (or a combination of both). As speed builds, that power level rises. A stock F8F will reach full power capability a lot sooner than Rare Bear will as it makes less power to start with.
 
grampi said:
Yeah, I saw that...still don't believe it...maybe you could explain to me how a highly modified Bearcat (Rare Bear) with well over 1000 HP more than a stocker could only do it 6 seconds quicker...the numbers just don't add up...
Click to expand...

Think of a Corvette, high horse Ford Mustang or other high powered muscle car with space saver tires on the back instead of big street tires. They have to build up power slowly of they will overcome their traction and just smoke the tires. A high powered prop plane will overpower their controls so they have to build up slowly.
 
And please look again at the record, the plane/s were taking off into a 40mph (?) headwind. sort of a number of seconds headstart and that much more "wind" going over the control surfaces in the first few seconds of the run allowing better control.
 
grampi said:
Yeah, I saw that...still don't believe it...maybe you could explain to me how a highly modified Bearcat (Rare Bear) with well over 1000 HP more than a stocker could only do it 6 seconds quicker...the numbers just don't add up...
Click to expand...
Well believe it - the man who posted that was the son of the pilot and has numerous documents and other data backing up how it was done. Those aircraft used during the testing were basically factory fresh and their configurations were mentioned a few times on this forum.

As far as Rare Bear - AFAIK it's climb feats were accomplished at Stead Airport, about 4000' MSL. The aircraft itself is really set up for horizontal flight and from talking to some of the crew (I was a crew chief at Reno in a different class) the prop pitch settings are set more for cruise than climb, so that might explain some of it.

The feat that was accomplished by RADM Leonard has been discussed and well known for years. Again, you could believe it or not but there is no reason for anyone to fabricate this flight, especially if one looks at RADM Leonard's combat record and distinguished naval career.


Carrier Pilot and Crew Bios - Fighting Three- William N. Leonard

Shortround6 said:
And please look again at the record, the plane/s were taking off into a 40mph (?) headwind. sort of a number of seconds headstart and that much more "wind" going over the control surfaces in the first few seconds of the run allowing better control.
Click to expand...

BINGO!!!
 
I could see where this would account for some it, but once Rare Bear achieved enough speed to pour the coals to it, given it's huge HP advantage over a stocker, I would think it would quickly be able to make up the difference...certainly it should be able to do this climb in a much shorter time than a stocker regardless of the headwind the stocker had...and how does a stocker make this climb one second quicker than the Gulfhawk 4 that weighed almost 3000 lbs less than a stocker (and had the same wing and prop pitch as the stocker)...that headwind isn't going to make THAT much of a difference...
 
Last edited:
40 mph Head wind will reduce the take of distance to 50ft by to around 40% (give or take) of "normal".

How do you take 3000lb out of a Bearcat? "Clean" a F8F-1 was carrying 2386lbs of "stuff". empty weight was 7070lbs (?) and loaded (clean) was 9386bs? Empty weight may include armor but it does NOT include guns.

Max gross for a F8F-1 was 12,987lb but that includes drop tanks or underwing ordnance.

Not sure how much difference there was in engines. The Gulfhawk 4 used a commercial CA 15 engine that might (or might not) be fitted with water injection, same engine used in Convair 110 and 220 airliners and DC-6s. It may be the exact commercial equivalent. I don't know.
 
Last edited:

I don't know how they made the Gulfhawk 4 almost 3000 lbs lighter than a standard Bearcat, but that's what it says in the "Bearcat In Action" book I have. This plane was flown by Maj Al Williams and he said it would climb from a dead stop to 10000 ft in 98 seconds and would do 500 MPH in level flight.
 
For a single engine, single-seat fighter in WWII, I believe empty weight does include guns, but not any ammunition. It also includes unusable fuel and undrainable oil.

Basic weight includes empty weight plus ammunition.

Normal weight includes basic weight plus oil, full internal fuel, and pilot or crew. Max gross includes normal weight plus any external stores of fuel and/or ordnance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Sakai Saburo Vs Sugita Sho-ichi
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
4K
GrauGeist
Supercharging & stuff - losses, improvements, good vs. bad. vs. excellent etc
2 3
Replies
44
Views
3K
Bretoal2
B
A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
J
Yak-9U Vs Bf-109
Replies
0
Views
751
Jerrybandit67
J
Menu
Log in
Register