|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 7,023 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 7,023 Likes: 1 |
The Bearcats looks to be a high performance SOB. Too bad it arrived too late to make a difference in Europe or the South Pacific.
Question for the experts?
With US forces already equipped with the F4U Corsair, the P38 Lightning, and the P51 Mustang, where does the Bearcat fit? (Other than the escort/pocket carrier role) Well the F6F Hellcat was also a stud and shot the hell out of the Japs. Remember, the F4F, F6F, and F8F were carrier aircraft, the specs were more stringent than run of the mill aircraft. Folding wings....ETC
$$$ TRUMP AT THE PUMP 2024 $$$
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 588
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 588 |
In 1946 a stock Bearcat set a time-to-climb record of 0-10,000 feet in 94 seconds, after a 115 foot takeoff roll. I read somewhere that its primary purpose was to intercept kamikaze aircraft.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 59,185 Likes: 3
Campfire Kahuna
|
OP
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 59,185 Likes: 3 |
Here's what I got to fly in flight school as a young Marine 2ndLt . . . close as I could get to a WW2 Warbird - Wright Cyclone R1800 - 1425 hp - F8 Bearcat is definitely King Kong and my favorite radial fighter.
That's cool as schit. It is, indeed!!!
Ex- USN (SS) '66-'69 Pro-Constitution. LET'S GO BRANDON!!!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,358
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,358 |
Geeze, don't any of you all read? Plane was a single purpose plane... high altitude interceptor meant only to operate from carriers. Even though it was developed early in the war things were over before it could be certified for carrier operations, fact is I think it failed first 3 attempts. It was too light, too fragile, and carried only limited armament. Missed WW2, and then even with 21 or 22 fully equipped squadrons when Korea started up Navy switched back to the F4F Corsair, The bearcat didn't see action with the U.S in any conflict even though it was available... The French did use it early on slightly in Indo-China and had lousy results... plane wasn't built for rough runway use. Folding wings, hell they were supposed to be manually folded to save weight, when that didn't work out, explosive bolts, and that didn't work, outer wings were designed to break off in high g maneuvers, but idea was a failure. The planes only selling point was its small size would allow a carrier to carry 20% more planes.
Same with the F7F, limited use it did see in Korea, even though again plans had been in effect early in WW2, believe the only shoot downs, were a couple old Russian Bi-Planes. Think there were something like 1,300 of the F8F's built, and something like 350 F7F's built and all were unable to carry out even limited roles.
Did, I guess make for fairly good trainer...
Phil
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,998
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,998 |
I was fortunate enough to meet a gentleman who flew the bearcat with the blue Angels, transitioned to jets flew combat missions in Korea,Vietnam. The type aircraft he flew during his career was amazing, spent hours looking through photos with him. His favorite aircraft ? The bearcat.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,662 Likes: 12
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,662 Likes: 12 |
IMO the Bearcat would have been at the top of the food chain of fighter aircraft. The Bearcat was the naval equivalent of the King Edward VIII class of warships in the Royal Navy and the rest of the world at the turn of the cnetury. They were at the top of the food chain in the sail to steam/armored ship development, but once HMS Dreadnought was launched in 1906, they just became razor bade fodder. The Bearcat was about three years too late.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 26,102 Likes: 20
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 26,102 Likes: 20 |
Since the P 80 was already flying in time to see very limited action in Italy. That kind of takes the wind from the sails of any prop fighter introduced as the Japs surrendered. The F8F would have made a hell of an impression, as Jorge stated, had it been available for Pacific Theater combat.
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 18
New Member
|
New Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 18 |
Neill Armstrong flew over 200 different types of aircraft during his career as a naval aviator and test pilot. Asked which was his favorite to fly, he immediately responded "the Bearcat".
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 17,147 Likes: 2
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 17,147 Likes: 2 |
With US forces already equipped with the F4U Corsair, the P38 Lightning, and the P51 Mustang, where does the Bearcat fit? (Other than the escort/pocket carrier role) The Bearcat was all about climb rate and shooting down lightly armored opponents in a fairly small circle around the carrier task force. That's what the Navy requested and that's what they got. It could do that much better than any of the others it was pretty much a one-trick pony but if that's the trick you needed it was far better than anything that existed and really that existed for the next few years. You wonder how much more effective we would have been defending against kamakazi attacks if it has made the big show. When Korea showed up that mission went away and in the mission there the much more versatile Corsair that could fly as an attack aircraft that could also defend itselfwhen needed. So the Navy chose practical in Korea and the USAF made a very poor decision to stick with the P-51D for it's attack mission instead of bringing the P-47 to the fight. It would have been much more survivable than the liquid cooled Mustang in the attack role.
If something on the internet makes you angry the odds are you're being manipulated
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,543 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,543 Likes: 1 |
[quote=Idaho_Shooter] So the Navy chose practical in Korea and the USAF made a very poor decision to stick with the P-51D for it's attack mission instead of bringing the P-47 to the fight. It would have been much more survivable than the liquid cooled Mustang in the attack role.
Except all the P-47s were decommissioned before then, or demobilized, or shipped off to Turkey, Iran, Brazil, Mexico, etc. The P-51Ds were available in large numbers, in theater, and had very long loiter times, which the troops really appreciated. The D model Mustangs had already been superceded by the P-51Hs stateside, but enough were still around at Japanese airbases to be useful. When Kimpo was re-taken, they became even more useful, with even longer loiter times. Kinda like everyone loved the A-1 Spad in Vietnam, because it could stay on station a LONG time.
You can roll a turd in peanuts, dip it in chocolate, and it still ain't no damn Baby Ruth.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 17,147 Likes: 2
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 17,147 Likes: 2 |
So the Navy chose practical in Korea and the USAF made a very poor decision to stick with the P-51D for it's attack mission instead of bringing the P-47 to the fight. It would have been much more survivable than the liquid cooled Mustang in the attack role.
Except all the P-47s were decommissioned before then, or demobilized, or shipped off to Turkey, Iran, Brazil, Mexico, etc. Kinda like everyone loved the A-1 Spad in Vietnam, because it could stay on station a LONG time. Yep, they were not completely gone but you're certainly correct that there were a lot more "D" Mustangs around. Had Douglas been able produce enough SPADS for both Navy and USAF our troops sure would have been a lot better off in Korea.
If something on the internet makes you angry the odds are you're being manipulated
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,213
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,213 |
If you'd like to read a great book that deals with a career pilot who flew many of these planes in combat (not sure about the Bearcat) you should pick up "Fighter Pilot: The Memoirs of Legendary Ace Robin Olds" written by his daughter. A great read.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 631
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 631 |
Yes, the Bearcat was designed as a short range interceptor to protect the fleet. High speed, high climb rate and great maneuverability.
I used to have my airplane tied down next to the CAF wing in Camarillo, CA. They have a Bearcat, Hellcat, Mustang, Japanese Zero, T-6's and a variety of WW11 aircraft, most of them flying. They recently acquired a P-47 to restore. One day I asked one of the pilots that flew the hot fighters how the Mustang compared to the Bearcat. I don't remember his exact words but it was something to the effect that the Bearcat was all over the Mustang. The Mustang wouldn't have a chance against the Bearcat.
|
|
|
|
537 members (338Rules, 257Bob, 270wsmnutt, 35, 358WCF, 58 invisible),
2,807
guests, and
1,398
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,194,684
Posts18,534,422
Members74,041
|
Most Online11,491 Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|