DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
Details????
Grumman F8F Bearcat or P-47?
- Thread starter I3unZss
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Details????
I believe a few Bearcats suffered structural failures while in French service in southeast Asia. Would have to dig more on that. F8F Bearcat post-WWII service
In "modern" times (June 1971), Bill Fornoff's F8F-2 wing failed (upper spar cap strip failed under tension due to fatigue, thus under negative g) during the pullout from a loop during very rough air conditions. Accident Grumman F8F-2 Bearcat N7700C, 05 Jun 1971
In "modern" times (June 1971), Bill Fornoff's F8F-2 wing failed (upper spar cap strip failed under tension due to fatigue, thus under negative g) during the pullout from a loop during very rough air conditions. Accident Grumman F8F-2 Bearcat N7700C, 05 Jun 1971
I flew with Bills son a few times, Eagle Weapons School Graduate.
Admiral Beez
Major
Not purely.
"Razorback" P-47Ds of the 333rd Ftr. Sq. prepare to launch from aircraft carrier Sargent Bay off the Marianas on 18 July 1944
http://www.ww2wings.com/wings/heroes/durwoodwilliams/333rdhistory.shtml
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
The source I have states that picture is in fact the USS Natoma Bay taken on the 22 June 1944 during a ferry mission to Saipan, carrying P-47Ds of the 318th Fighter Group.
The USS Sargent Bay did ferry P-47Ds on the 18th of July, but I believe those aircraft were off-loaded like normal cargo.
And I personally wouldn't call a few isolated catapult launches as actual carrier operations. The P-47s involved in the now infamous actions on the 22nd and 23rd of June 1944 were being ferried for land basing in the Marianas and could have never recovered back aboard ship, which is an integral part of carrier operations IMHO.
Interestingly enough, during the war there were seven US Army fighter squadrons which launched from carriers in the Pacific Theater:
-P-36s to Hawaii in February 1941,
-The 73d FS to Midway in P-40s in June 1942,
-The 45th FS to Kanton Island and 72nd FS to Makin in P-39s in December 1943,
-The 19th, 73d and 333d FS's to Saipan in P-47s in June 1944.
(The Makin and Saipan operations were catapult shots).
Source: 318th Fighter Group - Wikipedia
Last edited:
I don't think we can accept failures after 1945 as examples of the fragility of the design. Certainly not something from the 70s. They were never intended to last so long.
R Leonard
Staff Sergeant
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I thought the F8F being "inspired" by the FW-190 was a myth. I imagine that someone here might be able to confirm or deny that.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The F8F was a "clean sheet" design, meaning it wasn't a follow-on from the F6F.
When the G-58 was being drawn up, Grumman was listening to input from USN aces and had nothing to do with the European theater.
When the G-58 was being drawn up, Grumman was listening to input from USN aces and had nothing to do with the European theater.
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
I'm not quite sure when this false narrative developed, but it seems to persist even to this day. The idea was to mate the most powerful engine available to the smallest possible air frame in order to maximize performance. This concept was embraced in Europe early on, especially by the Soviets and Germans. It was an entirely new way of thinking for Grumman so maybe this is were the connection was made, but it's only a guess on my part. And even though the F8F was a brand new design, being both smaller and lighter than the F6F, the Grumman pedigree is still very easy to see.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The P-36 only had a 37' wingspan (just a bit larger than the F8F), powered by the R-1830 which was a substantial engine for the mid-30's, so the idea of a powerful engine in a smaller airframe was not a new concept for American designers.
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
Pitty that VF-19 didn't get the chance to at least use their new "toy" in combat before war's end (they were on their way to Japanese waters the week before the A-bombs were dropped). With the US Navy moving on to jets to fulfill it's role by the outbreak of the Korean war, it would be the French who ultimately gave the F8F it's baptism of fire in Indo-China.
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
I forgot about the P-36, that's a great example.
The preliminary drawings of the Bearcat were sketched by Grumman designer Dick Hutton and are dated 20-August-1943. The trip to England to see the FW 190 was in September of 1943. \\U.S. Navy Aircraft History: February 2011
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Myth BUSTED!
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 902
- Feb 16, 2013
The Fw 190 was well known long before the Grumman engineers traveled to England to inspect one. It is certainly not out of the question that the G-58 was at least in PART inspired by the Focke Wulf.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Perhaps this might be a case of reverse "Zero-itis". If it was a low wing radial engine fighter, it was a Zero. This time because the Bearcat looks kind of like the FW-190, it must have been inspired by it.
Shortround6
Major General
Pratt & Whitney were flying a P-40 with a two stage R-1830 for a good part of 1942 and 1943 less than 100 miles from the Grumman factory. P & W were suppling the engines for the F6F and F7F (not to mention having supplied the engines for the F4F). This radial P-40 hit over 380mph in testing (without guns or protection), Is it too difficult to believe that P & W told Grumman about some of the engine installation details used in this aircraft? Like the ejector exhaust?
F8F used the "C" series R-2800 to start (used about 10% less air for cooling than the "B" series in the F6F) but P & W and Grumman needed to look at a Fw 190 to figure out the low drag cowling?
How many planes (different types) had flown or were being built with R-2800s when work on the F8F started?
F8F used the "C" series R-2800 to start (used about 10% less air for cooling than the "B" series in the F6F) but P & W and Grumman needed to look at a Fw 190 to figure out the low drag cowling?
How many planes (different types) had flown or were being built with R-2800s when work on the F8F started?
I agree with Shortround6 and SaparotRob's points above that much of the myth is based on the similar size and body types. There was nothing unique about the idea of crafting the smallest body possible around the largest engine or for that matter the desire to improve the aerodynamics of the engine cowl and cooling. To me, the Bearcat represents a clearly defined set of design objectives: speed to intercept (carrier based take off and climb to engagement) and low and mid-level air superiority for the purposes of fleet defense. I have read somewhere that the Bearcat was intended to be able to work from smaller carriers hence part of the desire for the short take off run and smallish size. I also recall that the Bearcat (as well as the F2G) were desired to counter the growing kamikaze threat hence the emphasis on climb and engagement at lower altitudes. In its conception, the Bearcat is really a point defense interceptor rather than an all around combat fighter. One last thought about the FW190. I would be curious as to how much wind tunnel time went into the design of the F8F. The Grumman design team was quite capable and I'm sure that the design of the F8F benefitted from a good amount of wind tunnel testing rather than cribbing someone else's design.
