The other major problem the F2G had was the F8F-1 which could do everything the F2G could and more, much more. It was lighter, smaller and faster, it could climb higher and faster and was faster at altitude using a proven engine, it was the biggest reason the F2G was cancelled.
F8F-1 was not superior to F2G for same period. F2G was superior to F8F-1 in this case.
Such a conclusion like quoted post is usually made by comparing the F2G's performance using the military power(30 minutes limit) with the F8F-1's war emergency power(5 mintues limit) with water-injection. However, the 1944 vought data included performance using 60"hg 3,375 horsepower, which outperforms the F8F-1 at its equivalent power rating. The F2G project planned to install R-4360 with 3,650 hp(like XP-72), maintaining a speed of 465 mph at 20,000 feet and achieving a speed of 435 mph at sea level. Since the F2G project was canceled, these capabilities were not officially formulated, but the Navy knew the F2G-1 outperformed the F8F-1.
As follows, at 60"hg with 130 grade fuel, F2G was superior to F8F-1 for climb, speed, range and firepower(1944 data was x6 MG version).
max climb rate : 5,115 fpm(F2G-1) vs 4,570 fpm(F8F-1)
max speed at sea level : 397 mph(F2G-1) vs 382 mph(F8F-1)
max speed at 15,000 ft : 425 mph(F2G-1) vs 405 mph(F8F-1)
max speed at critical altitude : 426 mph at 14,600 ft(F2G-1) vs 421 mph at 19,700 ft(F8F-1)
time to 20,000 ft : 5.5 min(F2G-1) vs 5.9 min(F8F-1)
combat radius with drop tanks : 525 miles(F2G-1) vs 391 miles(F8F-1)
And the Navy's conclusion on this was as follows.
'Development was justified by an October 1944 BuAer Design Co-ordination report, which compared the F2G-1 (modified for carrier operation) with the F8F Bearcat. The F2G-1 using military power would be substantially faster than the Bearcat using war emergency power and it was also superior to the Bearcat using the R- 2800E engine(F8F with E-series R-2800 = F8F-2), except at high altitude. The F2G-1 was superior in speed over the F8F with the E engine from sea level to 17,000ft. The F8F-E climbed faster. However, the F2G-1 had a much higher stalling speed (92mph vs 82.5mph), which made it impractical to use from escort carriers. The F8F had a substantially better take-off but a somewhat shorter combat radius (the F2G could carry two drop tanks rather than one to gain even more radius). Goodyear claimed that adapting the F2G to carriers would require only limited additional weight. Design Co-ordination recommended continuing development on the basis of the speed advantage the F2G would enjoy at low altitude over other conventional fighters.'
However, after the war, as a specialized low-altitude aircraft, F2G had no merit compared to the F8F-1, which was able to operate on an escort carrier and developed and mass-produced faster. Since then, the performance of the F8F-1 has been improved with a 70"hg output using 115/145 fuel, the performance advantage of F2G(60"hg) has been narrowed down to only some altitudes.