I had a Flight Instructor in the 90s who flew USN Bearcats in the 1950s. He said, you never pushed the stick over on takeoff because the prop clearance was so tight. "Apply power and just let'er fly off . . .and she climbed like a homesick angel."
I recall somebody asking Neil Armstrong what his favorite airplane flown during his career was. Without hesitation, he grinned and simply said "Bearcat." The F8F was by no means a perfect airplane, but it was apparently a great winner of young fighter pilot hearts!
@UC7wNkJSLwtSkc1gGjsJCbmw Neil was something else. Everyone says that Apollo crew rotation got him to moon, yada, yada... They aimed to have top man as first landing mission commander. His war record, flying bedstand crash and ejection, and Gemini 8, showed that he was cool and collected personified.
@@kimmoj2570 Does that mean Neil would have kept his cool and not punched the guy like Buzz did, even though he had it coming, or that Neil would have waited to be off camera first?
@@kimmoj2570 he had his low points too, like the time he thought the lake bed was dry enough to use even though Yeager, who had years of experience at the dry lakes said it was too wet. Then tried to touch and go on the lakebed to prove it was dry and got a T-33 jet stuck in the mud.
The accounts I have seen of the Bearcat's 94 seconds to to 10,000 feet indicate that two flights were conducted by US Navy pilots flying F8F-1's at the Cleveland air races. The times were something like 96 seconds and 94 seconds. The planes were modified only by defeating some of the interlocks that limited take off power. The planes were further helped by taking off into a 30 mph head wind allowing the gear to be raised quickly. However there was a major difference in the plane's condition compared to the Navy performance test. The actual Navy test report indicates that the plane was in a "combat" condition for a normal fleet defense mission carrying 1110 pounds of fuel and about 300 pounds of ammunition. The rate of climb in this condition at sea level was 5610 fpm. The planes at Cleveland were probably carrying no ammunition and only a minimum amount of fuel. This would save around 1100 pounds of weight and add tremendously to the rate of climb with no major change to the airplane.
Awesome video. On a side note with a dollop of trivia, I've been obsessed with Jimmie Thach for a number of years. His contributions to the Navy from the early 1930s (when he was lent out to MGM to fly what was supposed to be Clark Gable's plane in the film Helldivers - Google Thach and Gable to get a great photo of Thach and other naval pilots alongside Gable and Wallace Beery) throughout the decade as a test pilot, in which role he literally became the first navy pilot to fly a Grumman aircraft in the competition that ended Boeing's previous dominance in producing planes for the service. In the lead up to WW II he both trained and easily out flew all of the pilots who became the leading naval pilots of WW II, including Butch O'Hare (his preferred wingman and only pilot who made him work in a dogfight), David McCampbell, and Alex Vraciu. Prior to the start of the war he developed his Beam Defense (later redubbed "The Thach Weave"), which Bull Halsey refused permission to implement as a standard tactic. But at Midway, with nearly the entire Japanese CAP swarming Thach and the two Rookie pilots flying with him, he ordered them to implement the Weave. For over 15 minutes the entire CAP struggled to shoot down Thach and his two rookies (after the final American torpedo plane had been dealt with), so that when the dive bombers arrived ,they were astonished to discover no defending Japanese fighters. At Midway, however, Thach was 37, and upon returning from combat was put in charge of producing training materials for new fighter pilots. Working closely with Walt Disney (I mean, the studio, but also the man), he wrote, provided technical aid, and narrated ten short films for use in training (most of these films can be found on CZcams). Late in the war he became Admiral John McCain aide (that's the grandfather of the senator), under whom he planned and oversaw those gargantuan thousand plane raids of Japan and designed the "Big Blue Blanket " defense against the kamikaze. After the war he became a carrier captain, ending that part of his career as captain of the Midway class carrier USS Franklin Delano Roosevelt. From there he went on to create the anti-submarine branch of the Navy (an award with his name is still given to the ship or unit in the branch most exemplifying the goals of the service). So here is the trivia. In the 1960s, in one of Thach's final assignments (he had long been an admiral at this point), he was put in command of the aircraft acquisition department. He had two major achievements in this role. The first was to put the final nail in Defense Secretart Robert McNamara dream of making the F-111 the main fighter for all branches of the US Military. With his background, he was able to explain why the F-111 could never become an effective carrier-based aircraft. And following that, he oversaw the specs for a next-generation fighter for the Navy, to replace the F-4 Phantom. The aircraft that eventually fulfilled the specs was the F-14 Tomcat. Quite a career.
Hands down your videos are the most detailed aircraft reference. Viewers do not know how time consuming the research takes to put a video such as this together. Thank you for posting.
That Bearcat at 29:38 is I believe the one I fueled up when I worked at a small airport in Farmington New Mexico in the the 1970s. That plane and a Mustang stopped there on their way to the Reno air races for fuel. After fueling, they took off and the Mustang was granted a low pass over the airstrip at full speed... Awesome. EDIT: I had a guy ask me to build a model for him of a plane his uncle flew. He gave me a home movie on disk that he had. It was in color and was of an airshow in Texas. It had several Bearcats, Hellcats, Twin Mustangs, Buccaneers and a flyby from an early B-36 (no outboard jets) and other late 40's - early 50s planes in it. It is dated 1950 and all the planes are still in US Navy markings so it may have been from a Navy base airshow. I haver never posted to CZcams but I might have to do it just to share this video with every one as it is really cool.
These videos are great for answering questions that always plagued me, specifically about what was used in Korea and why. Why Corsairs instead of Bearcats? Range, payload, reliability, durability . . . Why P51s instead of the obviously superior P47 for ground attack? Unit cost and availability are what I recall from your P47 series. Outstanding work.
Because the P47 would have been shot down at the same rate as a Mustang. This was clearly born out in Korea comparing Corsair and Mustang which had identical loss ratios.
The French used Bearcats in Indo-China - I just saw a u-tube video showing some burned out Bearcats at Dien Bien Phu (1954). It struck me as being a wildly inappropriate plane to use, with its short range. Maybe the French got them cheap from the US - who knows.
My Uncle actually joined the marines to fly this badboy. He did, but also went to Korea in F9fs, F2hs, F4u s. He did fly all the ww2 Grummans. His description of the Bearcat's acceleration is obscene.
@@dusk6159 The Douglas A-26/B-26 Invader as well. They all had a different aesthetic than earlier planes. On the other hand, despite being highly effective, the Skyraider - another great plane that barely missed WW II - always looked a bit out of proportion all the way around.
THX GREG your passion for these late model WWII planes without flying or pilot (as far as I know) is astounding. Besides videos you should get what you know in to hard copy books so people can purchase either for ref. Or viewing. I am sad the late model P47N weren't used in Korea. My thought on Bearcat and conclusions the same, for air racing and in its specific directive it was great but get it out 5Corsair and P47N blow it out of the sky. RBT
My dad attended an air show in the late 40s an F-80 Shooting Star and a F-82 Twin mustang raced in a dive leveled out over the runway and climbed out off the end of the runway. The F-82 out ran the F-80 until they started to climb out. This proves what you were talking about with the jet, as it accelerated down the runway it's engine got into the power curve and overwhelmed the prop plane. Every time you produce one of these I always learn something usually many things due to the angle of your presentation. Thanks john g
It just makes you realise how superior the Corsair was and what they achieved with basically the same engine .I always thought the Bearcat was the pinnacle of prop airplanes ,but it wasn't.
The F4U-5 had TWIN right angle first stage centrifugal superchargers (one on each side) and both "turned backwards" (opposite the rotation of the landing gear wheels). This necessitated mirror image blower wheels and volutes. Luke Hobbs was the genius in charge of testing and development of the 2800 (when I was little I met him and shook his hand)(Postwar my Dad worked for PW here in KC). In Hartford where and when they were testing the first -34 engine a tremendous amount of racket and heat and hardly any boost came out of the huge fancy supercharger. Mister Hobbs heard the commotion from his office, walked swiftly down to the test cell and motioned the boys to shut it down. "Fellas I think we got the blower wheels swapped side-to-side." was all he said - and he was right : D
@@MrNicoJac Agreed totally - but looking back on it - centrifugal blowers are really mechanically very simple devices. How many things only have one moving part, lol ?
Those twin blowers on side of -32 are 2nd stage, and are what gave the -5 its spectacularly high (esp. for Grumman/naval fighters) rated altitude. Perhaps interestingly, DB was using this dual approach in it's 2nd stage design work...
The fact that these Bearcats never saw good enough amount of combat in Korea when USN transitioned to the Panther jets as the main fleet air defence fighter. Some even called the Bearcat the rate of climb monster, since the USN emphasized on boom and zoom tactic where the USN fighters would climb into higher altitude than enemy aircraft formation and then pounce on them and then climb up again. I would personally say the true replacement of the F4F Wildcat is the Bearcat, Hellcat was basically a stopgap since the USN needed an aircraft that could keep up with the Zeroes, but there's nothing to brag and not a lot of change from the F4F.
@@SoloRenegade thanks for mentioning the Spiteful 👍 Both it and the Seafang are awsome aircraft that unfortunately never got to see service. They need some love.
Another ripping episode from Greg .. superb. You know I've often contemplated the pending wonders of Allied airpower had WWII gone on for another 12 months. From the U.S. the Bearcat, F-7, Shooting Star, the F-82, late variants of the P-47 and P-51 etc. From the Brits; the Sea Fury, DH 103 Hornet, Vampire etc. From us Aussies; well not much in the air but on the ground probably more of the same which achieved the first land based victories over Imperial Japan and Germany at Milne Bay and Tobruk respectively. Rock on crew .. rock on.
I love these videos. As a WW2 aviation enthusiast, I thank you Greg for the invaluable insight and knowledge you bring to these videos. I always learn something new.
Watching this on a weeknight and couldn't figure out why someone would be using a chainsaw at 10pm. Took me a minute to figure out it was background noise in the video. Still a great video though! Definitely one of the most underrated channels on CZcams for WWII aviation.
I thought it was interesting that the F8F was in the same ballpark size wise as the 2 German contemporaries, but had much more wing surface area. Thank you for another great video !
Very surprised to learn that the Bearcat has so many compromises, It's one thing to decide naval combat doesn't take place at high altitude, it's really another to decide that the planes max g-loading is going to be 5g's. I guess you said later cats had strengthened wings but the range seems like a real problem even with drop tanks... seems like a kamikazi interceptor design rather than a real fighter.
The whole idea of the Bearcat was a point defense fighter. It was meant to get in the air fast, climb fast and fight right away. The drop tanks were more or less for ferry range or loiter time. And in WW2, you had to make compromises in high altitude and low altitude performance. Spitfires had to make those compromises, low altitude models had clipped wings and single speed superchargers. If you are fighting at low altitude, and you have weight and maintenance concerns to worry about, why would you add a second supercharger speed or a second stage of supercharging or an extended wing tip to fly at altitudes you won't see?
@@Carstuff111 The Seafire variant of the Spitfire is a prime example of what you're saying, not only did it have a single stage single speed supercharger but it was actually optimized for low altitude performance by having it's supercharger impeller "cropped down" since the Seafire's basic role was ground support for troops landing on the beach, it also gave it a pretty quick time to altitude for around 10,000 ft which is about where carrier launched fighter's would intercept incoming enemy aircraft for the fleet defense role. Not only does having a single stage single speed supercharger a benefit for those reasons but they're cheaper, are less of a load on the pilot in combat and the possibility of a malfunction from battle damage causing the supercharger to shift into it's high range and overboost the engine causing it to blow up is eliminated, close air support pilots have very little margin for an error or problem that would cause them to bail out because of the low altitude they're operating at, the less that can go wrong the better for them.
It makes total sense to me though. As discussed, mostly on this channel I believe, fighter tactics had evolved to the diving-down-and-shooting-past kind. Dogfights in which you won by out-turning your opponent were just not a viable tactic (reliably, against Japanese fighter planes, in WW2). And, if you don't _need_ tight turns for dogfights anyways (or, rather, if it was a losing hand to bet on), then it makes sense to focus your design in a way that helps pilots who do the 'right' thing _while_ incentivizing them to **not** do the 'wrong' thing. And 5G is plenty for positioning turns, pre-combat, right?
Greg. I can never say Thank You enough. I am a huge fan of WW2 aviation. There have always been gaps that I didnt understand. But your videos have closed these gaps and given me a much better appreciation and understanding. Thank You.
A real gem, as with all of Gregs' videos, they are very well thought out and presented with an authority that leaves no room for doubt about their accuracy.
I’ve seen a lot of current warbird pilots fly different WW2 fighters at various fly-days and airshows. John Sessions, Carter Teeters to name a few. The smile on their faces and joy they express after after the high performance of flying the Bearcat is second to none. An ear-to-ear grin doesn’t describe it. Hearing them talk about getting near 70 inches of manifold pressure with awe in their voices is something indescribable.
In addition, having talked to those pilots after they flew the Bearcat, I can tell you that it took a week to get the smile off their face! Wonderful airplane to view in action.
Great choice for a video Greg. The Bearcat is a straight up BEAST! Hot, uncomfortable, and about as practical as a funny car. lol But Geez, that thing can climb. A couple of facts: Grumman was so obsessed with weight savings that there was no re-stow mechanism for the arresting hook. It was a simple spring-loaded plunger that ground crew had to shove back into the tail after landing. Also, the windscreen on the F8F-2 was lengthened compared to the -1. Probably to accommodate the new gunsight. It's about as subtle as the changes to the vertical fin, but if you look close you can see it.
I don't know much about engineering and all, but I love ww2 planes and always love to just listen to you ramble on about this stuff while doing some chores or whatever. Thank you for making these and giving me a fun and relaxing time while listening to you.
Near the end of the war in the Pacific, the Navy was pushing for outfitting our carriers with interceptor aircraft of the highest-performing types 'to combat the threat of low-flying suicide aircraft'. They worked on the F2G Corsair with the R4360 engine, and a few others. The F8F performance from brake release to practical altitude exceeded all others. The frangible wing tip thing sounds zany now, but at one time, ejection seats were killing almost as many pilots as they were saving. I think Grumman got a chance to build the hotrod they craved, and most knew that jets were coming soon. I think it is important to accept that aircraft designers generally know what they're doing, and Grumman built the fighter with the range and performance the Navy specified. I'm guessing as well that with thousands of neophyte pilots in training, the F8F would be easier to learn to fly on and off a carrier than the F4U. I enjoyed this video, quite educational, and even some of the apples-to-oranges comparisons with other fighters that were designed for entirely different tasks, such as, high-altitude, long-range bomber escort, extended maritime patrol/attack, or fleet-defense standing top-cover patrols.
Now that was another high density information video… again. Well Greg, excellent work! Thank you very much! Go ahead and dig in deep into the glorious age of propeller driven marvels.
I was thinking about using a string - if it snapped in one wing tip, it would release the other side too. (you can imagine my reaction when Greg said "doubled down" on the insanity🥲) But I hadn't thought of using explosives, LOL (there's a "Muricans"-joke in there somewhere, haha)
Just love this plane - along with the Sea Fury. Thank goodness that the need for carrier operations kept these lovely ladies flying into the early jet age.
I saw many Bearcats racing at the Reno Air Races. Your description of the compromises to produce a Kamikaze killer make me glad that the concept wasn't tested in battle. I understand the reasons why early jets didn't match the climb rate of the Bearcat--the jets might be faster, but with "angle of attack" issues they had to fly farther to reach altitude (among other reasons). The Bearcat seemed to have been designed to reduce the reliance on flying a continuous fighter CAP over the task force. I'd need to know more about the successful USN fighter CAP tactics to determine if being able to go from deck to 20,000 feet and then dive on Kamikaze was reasonable. The original armament of the Bearcat was four caliber .50 machine guns with 300 rounds per gun or 1200 rounds total. In combat, machine gun ammunition in fighter planes was often reduced for some missions to lighten the airplane--giving it better climb or more loiter time. I estimate 12 to 15 seconds of continuous .50 caliber machine gun fire with the AN/M2 caliber .50 fixed machine guns or putting out something like 56 bullets in a one-second burst. Britain insisted that the later models of the F4F Wildcat have six machine guns and some of the FM had only five--I've read that US Navy fighter pilots thought that four machine guns were just fine, and that the additional two guns were excess weight. Running out of machine gun ammunition happened in USN service during dogfights but doesn't seem to have been a big deal. The larger 20mm cannon had a lower rate of fire and less ammo (by round count--not by weight) but each hit would do more damage. I think that Grumman wanted the four 20mm (which were not ready for prime time even in 1945) but took the advice of US Navy fighter pilots that four caliber .50 machine guns would be better than six, especially when the weight factor is considered. The later AN/M3 Caliber .50 aircraft machine guns had about 30% faster cyclic rate but wasn't standardized until April 1945. www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/m3.htm#:~:text=The%20M3.50%20caliber%20machine%20gun%20%28also%20referred%20to,while%20it%20is%20being%20fed%20into%20the%20gun. So, if the Bearcat had been armed with the uprated AN/M3, the burst fire from four M3 guns would have equaled the burst fire from six M2 guns more or less, with less weight--but duration of fire would have gone down about a third for the same ammunition loadout. Good thing that the Japanese were not using B-29 bombers with guided bombs to target American ships--though the Betty bomber launching Baka manned bombs might have been a real headache.
Having read the articles by Walter Boyne on the Bearcat. One of the anecdotal story he tells is of a race between the Bearcat and the Mustang as to which was a better plane. They ended up wingtip to wingtip on a runway with both planes at max throttle and, on a pre-arranged signal, both planes released their brakes. Before the Mustang could even get his wheels up, the Bearcat had made one gunnery pass over it and was turning to make a second pass. Lots of money changed hands that day! I believe the Hellcat was the perfect aircraft for its time during WWII. It was fairly easy to fly with no nasty habits. Since many of the pilots coming out flight school only had flight time in planes without the performance of the Hellcat. Thus stepping up to the Hellcat, with its easy of use and no nasty habits gave the young pilots a lot confidence in their planes to ease into carrier training. Plus landing on a carrier was much easier in a Hellcat. Lastly, the Bearcat came out at the perfect time to provide its now experienced pilots with a true air superiority aircraft. I almost wonder what would have happened if the war went on long enough for an invasion. Japan had been hoarding planes enough for massive Kamikaze attacks.
@@marklittle8805 The Hornet had super prop performance without the torque issues of the single engine super props (or the reliability issues of single engine fighters with contra-rotating props).
Grumman‘s insistence on using the dangerously impractical break away wings reminds me of Ferdinand Porsche's insistence on producing a highly experimental and temperamental electric drive for his super tank in the middle of a war when trying such experiments was totally impractical! It just shows that you can't let the engineers run the show!
Corky Myer, Grumman test pilot, discusses the wingtip explosive testing in his excellent book. It is a fantastic read, he flew everything from wildcats to 60’s jets. He is a great storyteller and has a chapter on flying all of the major types US, English, German and Japanese.
Trivia answer: Japanese pilots, used the generic term ’Grumman’ (グラマン）for the F6F and F4F, but the Mustang was called 'mustang'. In the same way that many American pilots called most of the fighters they saw 'Zeros' the Japanese called most U.S. fighters 'Grumman's. F8F must've been a blast to fly. Closest I ever got to experiencing Bearcat-like climb rates was late one afternoon in a hot-rod Cessna Caravan jump plane. The stock 675 HP Pratt and Whitney turbine had been replaced with 850 HP Garret and the stock 3-bladed prop with a bigger 4-blade unit. The plane's interior was also stripped, so it was both much lighter than stock and much more powerful. This particular flight was the last of the day, there were only two jumpers in back and I had just enough fuel for the one run to 14,000', our normal jump altitude. Anyway, I don't know what the record is for jump planes to 14K, but if I didn't set it that day it was pretty close, as the 'Van was going almost straight up. Can't remember the fpm but it was way more than I'd ever seen before. Flying jumpers is a great job for Walter Mitty-type, wannabe fighter pilots....
@@bronco5334Germans also called 4-engined bombers 'dicke Autos' (Big Cars/Vehicles), enemy fighters 'Indians', cargo planes "Möbelwagon' (furniture movers), when they got clobbered by a fighter they'd say 'he blew his nose on me', called their fighters a 'Mühle' (mill), etc.
When I read the book Devotion by Adam Makos, I was surprised that the squadron originally operated Bearcats, but they changed to Corsairs before going to Korea. It makes sense now. Thanks, great content.
With the growing popularity of this video maybe it's worth doing a series on super props much like your p47 series. I think allot can be learned from the attempts to push propeller driving aircraft to the max and why they have a brick wall in terms of performance. I would love to have more info on the p51h. If I remember correctly with WEP it was pushing over 90inhg manifold pressure. Contra props are a interesting topic that's never discussed in a in depth manor and I would love to learn more about turbo props as well. Great content Greg I will be joining your patreon and I highly recommend any other enthusiast do the same. This info really makes your sims come to life.
Great video, the Bearcat is one of my favorite planes. One thing that I think should be pointed out about the Bearcat is the wing loading, it is relatively high. The Bearcat's wing area is only 244 sq ft, compared to 314 sq ft in the Corsair, and 334 sq ft in the Hellcat. Even accounting for the lighter weight, the Bearcat still has a higher wing loading than either of them. I strongly suspect that this was yet another design choice made to improve rate of climb. A lot of people don't know that wing loading feed into the equation for maximum rate of climb speed, and consequently see a low wing loading as being a purely good thing. But like everything in aircraft design, it's a compromise. A low wing loading helps with the turn rate, but hurts the climb rate, and vice versa, and it's clear in the case of the Bearcat that they put more emphasis on the climb rate.
It was mentioned in another article about the Bearcat, one main reason for its smallness was to replace the F4F Wildcat on the Navy's much smaller "escort carriers" that were fairly extent by the end of WW2, more then totally replace the USN's inventory of its larger fighter-bomber F4U's, etc.
The R2800-32W actually had two superchargers for the first stage. The other one was on the other side of the engine which can't be seen in your picture. They were called sidewinders. There is a good picture of the -32W in Graham White's "Allied Aircraft Piston Engines of WWII".
There are anecdotal claims that the Bearcat was seen as a direct replacement for FM-2s on the USN's escort carriers where a shorter take-off run and smaller size was preferred. The lack of range and payload would not have been a practical detriment as apart from fleet defence, the lack of space means you can only take a light external load for CAS missions which escort carriers extensively provided for during amphibious operations. The end of the war saw the mothballing of most of these ships so there was not that much need for the Bearcat in an environment where fleet carriers dominated.
Dude! I just posted how the Bearcat seems to me the Navy wanting a superior answer to the escort carriers variant of the Wildcat but with Hellcat power. I guess it's true, great minds do think alike:) Awesome video by Greg.
My father was a naval aviator winged in 1941. He never flew carrier aircraft but knew many who did. He lost two good friends flying the Bearcats. Both accidents were in -1 and both were essentially the same cause. You had to be careful about power settings on takeoff. The plane would flip over within a few feet of the ground due to excessive torque. My dad says that’s the reason for the -2’s 12” taller vertical tail. Torque control at lower speeds.
This is the plane that made the greatest impression on me when I saw one fly at Duxford (England) a few years back. It vibrated your chest on the ground yet was as smooth as silk in the air.
Same with me when I saw one fly for the first time. So nimble despite that huge, thick engine and had a very unique sound compared to other big radials. Seemed that you felt it more than heard it when it went over....and that climb! Wow!
I remember quite well being at the Reno air races in the 90’s. The V12’s would fly by and what a sweet sound. Then Dreadnought went by with his massive 4360 and wow what a sound. Then Rear Bear went past with his 3350 and a three bladed prop and it was unworldly. Lol. Not only the sound but you could feel it rumbling as he went by.
Great vid! As a kid mid-50's, I remember watching the Jet v Bearcat climb race at Oakland NAS, and yes, the Bearcat won. Even better, the race from parallel runways was double sided... from roll to altitude to stop. Jets not even close.
Love the F8 bearcat to bits. Really the apotheosis of piston engine fighters. As a real world pilot I would love the chance to fly one of these. One can imagine an alternate history where the Pacific war lasted into 1946 and these were used for their original purpose: Killing kamikaze’s.
Yet another informative video Greg. Learned alot more about the Bearcat than I ever could have expected. A hotrod of an airplane but one that was ultimately too little, too late to be of much use beyond it's designed goals. Still its nuts what Grumman did to get what they could out of that airframe.
Excellent video Greg. Your discussion of the later model Corsair makes me hope for a video on the later mode / Korea era Corsairs. If anyone hasn’t read the Adam Makos book Devotion I highly recommend it. A lot of USN ground attack ops using Corsairs and so much more.
I worked for EATON for 10 years. Yes, they did make sodium filled valves for aircraft engines during WWII. I have one stashed in a box somewhere. They also made sodium filled exhaust valves for the aftermarket automotive high performance engines.
I operated the R-2800 about 3000 hours in the DC-6. It sounds like you did your homework on that engine. Well done. It was amazing when you did a wet takeoff compared to a dry takeoff.
allright Greg...i saw now some videos from you and i have to say something. What you created here is simply a long needed "no BS" and "no superficial bla bla" format on youtube...thank you, i love it! short Backgroung if interested: I studied mechanical engenering (aeroengines) in germany and worked on projects with turbine engines incl. reverse engineering old ones. I worked several years as a flight instructor after my time in the university and in developement. now im finally in my ATPL training, making my dream come true. while going over all these "performance", "aircraft general knowledge" and "principles of flight" subjects, i can compare it to your claims to learn and as well as the messurment systems you describe and im amazed how much knowledge you can put easy understandable in those videos. since im a german with a little experience in russian language and engines, i can read and understand the tables and diagrams you sometimes show. I just can imagine the amount of work you put in your videos.
Whenever I visit the IWM Duxford Museum Greg, I always take time to check out the flying Bearcat in the workshops. I find the cost equation of aircraft quite an interesting subject. I know this might be a little academic in WW2 USA. In Europe it might be a little different. For instance, it is often said the ME109 cost half a Spitfire, a Jumo jet engine half to a third of a V12 ICE engine.
As always, great presentation of a good subject, Greg. I always get a laugh out of your "you will never guess how the engineers solved this problem" segments. I always wonder about the first guy who discovered something like, "the wing tips didn't break off symmetrically, and there was no time to recover." Thank you for this and your many excellent videos.
I can imagine the test pilot muttering to himself about flying a plane that's designed to blow its wings off. Bet he didn't tell his wife what he was going to do at work that day.
I learned years ago they did something similar with the spitfire. They glued peas to the fuselage to work out where it needed flush riveting and where it didn't. This may have been done initially one the earlier float equiped versions but that's how they did it
Excellent video with much new information on a plane I thought I knew well. Remember the famous picture of a Bearcat upside down with gear, flaps, and hook down on a waveoff. With all that power and short wingspan, torque roll was an ensign killer. Believe the one in the photo simply completed the roll and kept flying.
@Greg, you need to add Corky Meyer’s “Flight Journal” to your sources, you’ll find the Hellcat to Corsair speed comparaison and the FW-190 influence on Bearcat design.
weird, i always thought of the F8F as if the US government brought Grumman an Fw 190 and said "build us one of these". the F6F is obviously derived from the F4F, while the F8F in size shape and layout is exactly like the Fw 190 (although to a lesser or greater degree every radial figter after the Fw 190 looked like it). It is the same size, if has the same shrouded exhaust, short wing span, bubble canopy, wide track gear, singe large fuel tank under the seat. Then they let Grumman do whatever detail work needed to turn it into the fighter they needed. Of course you can see features of the Fw 190 on any any late war radial fighter. But the closest to the Fw 190 overall are the La-7, the Tempest, the Ki-100, and the F8F. the La-7 and ki-100 are both built from inline fighters, and the Tempest is much larger. The F8F is the only one that looks like a direct analogue next to the Fw 190.
My favorite piston warbird to fly! (Not having flown a P-51H.) Just a joy to fly, point it and it goes. Still easy to land like a Grumman, well laid out cockpit. The cockpit is a bit hot. Visibility over the nose better than the F6F, and of course to 6. Now, like a few of the later USN fighters, the drop tanks on the F8F feed the main fuel tank, so you don’t have to subtract your start, taxi, take off fuel from total range. You should have a mostly full main internal tank unlike a P-38, P-47, P-51 etc. Also, it cruises faster at the same fuel flow carrying that belly tank at 10,000 feet than a clean F4U or F6F.
I did read a biography of an American fleet/test pilot who considered the bearcat to be a bit of a hot ship. Apply a too much throttle trying to counteract too much sink and it would turn itself upside down and smash into the transom of the carrier. Lovely clean looker.
Torque was a general issue with the single engine single prop "super props". Flying at low airspeed and suddenly add a lot of power - the engine tries to spin the prop faster, but instead rolls the airplane in the opposite direction. Contra-rotating props were tried a lot, but in general were heavy and suffered from reliability issues.
As the guys who restored both the Focke Wulf and Bearcat at the NASM, ( National Air & Space Museum), told me, they are almost the same plane. In fact, they refer to the FW-190 as the "Teutonic Bearcat"
Another exellent video, Greg! I must say, I'm sometimes a bit overwelmed with all the knowledge you throw at us. There are multiple video's I had to watch more than once to understand everything you explain. Though I'm enjoying every video you put out there, so please keep it up!
I grew up on Long Island and Grumman was the largest employer, with Fairchild Republic and with all the parts suppliers, almost everyone had someone in the family that worked in the airplane industry. Today there is nothing left, terrible.
Great video! The Bearcat really displays the kinds of design compromises involved in designing war planes and why comparing this plane versus that plane can be very complicated. In the case of the Bearcat, its singular purpose was that as a fleet interceptor to shoot down kamikazes.
Maybe I blinked and missed it but in addition to its tight "fleet defense" role, I'd add: FROM ESCORT CARRIERS. There were like 3-4 escort carriers per regular carrier and none could carry the Hellcat. And even the regular carriers couldn't (according to USN) carry the Corsair. The Bearcat wasn't just small and simple to be light for climb speed, but for ability to work on escort carriers. Granted the wildcat COULD be used on escort carriers (and thus was kept around for years despite the Corsairs and Hellcats) but it in turn had a far smaller engine, albeit with dual superchargers. Even if the Corsair was faster AND bigger payload AND longer range etc. etc., it could only do so from airfields, not decks, much less tiny decks.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles my point though is that it was more than just a plus, it was both a REQUIREMENT, and a CONSTRAINT... a constraint the Corsair and Hellcat didn't have to meet. Not having to meet it allowed them more weight, which meant more supercharger stages, more performance, more fuel, more payload etc. So while YES it's fun comparison and even necessary comparison to make (and which the Bearcat loses) in a sense it's not a fair or practical comparison, due to the other planes not having to meet the constraint. In other words, if you want air superiority over an escort carrier, Bearcat's your boy. Otherwise we shouldn't expect it to have a chance, and no surprise, it doesn't. As a youth I loved the Corsairs, then more recently, the Bearcat, but from your channel I think I've learned enough that the Hellcat is really the model closest to this aging engineer's heart. It lacks the Corsair's specs and doesn't quite match the combat record, but in contrast, the ease of flying for new pilots, safety, visibility, and the price/performance make it seem, like the Fw-190, the "adult" choice. I also believe Soviet/Russian fighters similarly had exposed rivets on most of the panels not in direct force of the wind until the 90s or even 00s. Just flush where it really counted. Not sure if its true.
I love this channel for these videos. I can not wait to see more! And I admit, I have watched a few of your older videos more than once just to keep things fresh for newer videos.
Beautiful as always, Greg. Great information and insights. Tickled to see two videos this week. Great work, thanks so much. Grumman was making some serious decisions changes...I think it all worked out okay with the Tomcat...but there were some bumps in the road. Again, great work!
Another wonderful and as usual informative video. Can't wait for the next few videos about this fascinating category of fighter aircraft. They are my favourite propeller driven aircraft. An interesting British fighter prototype that never went into any real manufacturer was the Martin Baker MB5. While you were talking about the worst cockpit layout, this aircraft was apparently renowned for its brilliant layout. Anyway, I'm trying to find a picture of a navalised Me109 taking off from an aircraft carrier so we can talk! Keep up the great work.
I wonder if Grumman should have spent more time developing the F6F-6 (four-propped version). Maybe, even an F6F-7 with a bubble canopy, 4x20mm cannon, uprated R2800, and a four-blade paddle prop would have been excellent for post WWII use.
I have been patiently waiting for this ever since I discovered your channel. The F8F (in my humble opinion) doesn't get the attention it deserves since it didn't shoot down thousands of A6M's in the pacific. It is by far my favorite prop plane.
Knew little of the Bearcat until I saw one at a small air show in Burnet, TX a few years ago. They had one that was restored so well it looked factory new and had never seen one before. Up close it seemed like it was nearly all engine and prop. It took off from the airstrip and immediately went nearly straight up like a rocket. The climb rate on that plane truly was incredible! I’ve been in love with the Bearcat ever since. Thanks Greg!
Another excellent video! That is absolutely insane that they designed the plane to rip part of the wings off if you over-G and even more insane to double down on that by adding explosive bolts so that both would rip off.
It's cute that Greg's max extent of click-baiting is to put one exclaimation point in the title. Love you and your content Greg! I've learned alot from your videos. :D
Thanks Greg; who would have thought explosively detaching wing tips wouldn't catch on? Looking forward to some more super props; sleeve valves and all.
Thanks for a great analysis of the Bearcat, Greg. With regard to your cost per plane theory, Grumman was designing planes to meet Navy Bureau of Aeronautics (BuAer) specifications. BuAer set the specs that would drive cost per plane. This was not a Grumman Corp strategy. And with regard to aircraft carrier space, these planes occupied very expensive real estate and defended a very expensive national asset. Therefor relatively cheap airplanes that could not defend that carrier would be a bad investment by BuAer (later NAVAIR for the F-14). The F6F was great plane but was relatively cheap because it was an upgraded F4F with a wider track landing gear and R-2800 engine; a very evolutionary design approach. Thanks again for the great video.
Thanks for a most informative video dedicated to my favorite piston aircraft. Having looked at French-language sources, I, too, could not find any reference to F8Fs ever engaging in air-to-air combat in Indochina. The French used it mainly for air reconnaissance and ground attack.
Didn’t know that the bearcat had a one stage supercharger instead of the 2 stage superchargers on the hellcat and Corsair which basically means that the Bearcat was designed to fight 20000 feet and under, thanks for that info 👍🏽
My father was a Navy carrier pilot and instructor during Ww2. He had warm words for the Hellcat as a fig h ter. He also very much liked the Corsair However he felt the Bearcat was hands down the best carrier fighter plane of the war.
Excellent historical & technical overview of the Bearcat - I really didn't know much about this aircraft until now. I keep looking at the side profile of this aircraft, and it reminds me of the Sea Fury (different beast). Thanks!
It's what they call "parallel evolution" in the animal kingdom :). Similar problems: how to squeeze as much performance out of plane intended for carriers ? Similar solutions, biggest engine you can reasonably bolt on the smallest frame than can safely cope with carrier landings. Results in using a huge radial in the front (because for equal power an inline engine is longer so the shorter radial was preferred to save space), "smooth lines" for speed (always that chunky look :)) ) and a cockpit as forward as feasible with a bubble canopy for the pilot. If you squint your eyes a little all naval prop fighters tend to look like this by the end of WW2.
F7F-3 used 34W with a lower max setting of 66" instead of 70" for both low and high gears. AU-1 used the -83W, almost identical to -34W. Used 70" for Low gear and 66" for High gear.
Do you know how many inHg the F8F-2 R-2800-30W ran at maximum power? All I can find is takeoff dry at 60". 70" on low blower for the -34W/-83W is so perplexing. Looking at calibration charts for the -22W/34W, the maximum power line when extrapolated to sea level seems to be only a hair above 60"/2400 HP. This lines up with the quoted power outputs and critical altitudes for the F7F-1 ACP. So where did the extra inches come from? Is it just with a ton of ram air, but simply isn't stated in the SACs? If so, what *does* it actually reach static? And even more confusingly, I just noticed the combat speed graph on the AU-1's SAC seems to *increase* with altitude to 2k ft before decreasing, unlike its climb and F8F-1 climb+speed graph that decrease from sea level. So does it somehow get enough compression from ram air alone that gains like 20 more inches at that altitude, and puts it on par with the R-2800-42W with intercooled 2 stage SC? None of it makes sense to me... would appreciate if you could bl lend some light on some things that've perplexed me for a long time!
@@pz2233 F8F-2 max manifold seems to be 72'' in flight manual, F4U-5 max manifold is 70''. In R2800 it seems that with water injection engine runs smoother. In F4U-1 for example if we extrapolate max military to SL this will give us 2100hp, but if we do the same with war emergency it will give us over 2300hp. In P47D, If you run 65'' at Military = 2400hp and with water injection at the same 65'' = over 2600hp. Now If we go to the DoubleWaspIndex and to the last pages we can see -34 and -83 engines running at 100/130 + ADI and they achieve 2400hp at 56'' at SL. F7F ACP quoting 2400hp with ADI is probably at the same 56''. If we relate Power Plant chart of F8F-1 manual with SAC and with the Operation Limits Chart (all of them running at 115/145 fuel and no ram), this will give us that at the minimum height of 4000feet Combat power at Low blower engine switches to High Blower. This High Blower runs at 2450hp at 70'', so if we go to the OLC and make a parallel to the Low Blower Military Rating that passes over 2450hp at 4000feet this line will end at SL at 2750HP, exactly what SAC says. So with all this considered I think 2750HP were achieved at static, or if not static at least at low ram climb values at SL. But who would use water injection at such power in static conditions? At most in a emergency climb it will be used after take off with regular 2300HP military rating. This said AU-1 SAC performance is based only on flight tests while F8F-1 SAC is based partialy at least on calculations, so I will take the AU-1 SAC as the most correct. It is also the one that most makes sense since water injection always has a plus over military, natural in a r2800. It also makes sense that speed increases because engine is able to retain the 70'' 2800Hp up to 2000 feet thanks to the ram air at full velocity, while in the climb graph since the ram is much lower power decreases and climb decreases. Take a look at how all the crit alts in the speed graph are higher thanks to ram and also look at how big the increase in climb is from Military (2300HP) to Combat, this seems to suggest again that at SL and low ram 2800hp is achieved. About the R2800-42W/18W, in F4U-7 flight manual max manifold is 70'' using 115/145 and water injection, combat allowance goes as follows: feet --> Manifold --> Blower Position SL --> F.T. --> Neutral 5000 --> 70 --> Low 10000 --> 70 --> Low 15000 --> 70 --> High 20000 --> 70 --> High 25000 --> F.T --> High 30000 --> F.T --> High Probably It had 2800HP at SL like AU-1 but SL would be already the crit alt and since Low Blower power at 70 would be around 2600HP it would change to Low very quickly, at least in a climb. It is worth to note that in F4U-7 the nose intake is for a big oil cooler located in the engine accesory compartment, Main Stage (Neutral blower) and Auxiliary Stage (Low and High blower) are fed from the wing intakes, while in the F4U-4 the nose intake is for the the Auxiliary Stage, the Main Stage is fed from the wing intakes and has two oil coolers one on each wing intake.
@@Metrallaroja Wow! I never thought of extrapolating high blower combat HP to SL with the low blower military line! Thank you for the insight. This has boggled my mind for so long. I'm still confused at what manifold pressure 2750 HP is achieved on low blower, considering how little excess MP is available. Maybe ram air increases HP over 2750 HP?
I had a Flight Instructor in the 90s who flew USN Bearcats in the 1950s. He said, you never pushed the stick over on takeoff because the prop clearance was so tight. "Apply power and just let'er fly off . . .and she climbed like a homesick angel."
I recall somebody asking Neil Armstrong what his favorite airplane flown during his career was. Without hesitation, he grinned and simply said "Bearcat." The F8F was by no means a perfect airplane, but it was apparently a great winner of young fighter pilot hearts!
Bearcat was like FW190 going to anabolic steroids full on before competition. Compact airframe crammed with BIG horsepower.
@UC7wNkJSLwtSkc1gGjsJCbmw Neil was something else. Everyone says that Apollo crew rotation got him to moon, yada, yada... They aimed to have top man as first landing mission commander. His war record, flying bedstand crash and ejection, and Gemini 8, showed that he was cool and collected personified.
@@kimmoj2570 Does that mean Neil would have kept his cool and not punched the guy like Buzz did, even though he had it coming, or that Neil would have waited to be off camera first?
It flew very much like a Jet fighter. Made a pretty good jet trainer. It was designed to replace the Wildcat for escort carriers.
@@kimmoj2570 he had his low points too, like the time he thought the lake bed was dry enough to use even though Yeager, who had years of experience at the dry lakes said it was too wet. Then tried to touch and go on the lakebed to prove it was dry and got a T-33 jet stuck in the mud.
The accounts I have seen of the Bearcat's 94 seconds to to 10,000 feet indicate that two flights were conducted by US Navy pilots flying F8F-1's at the Cleveland air races. The times were something like 96 seconds and 94 seconds. The planes were modified only by defeating some of the interlocks that limited take off power. The planes were further helped by taking off into a 30 mph head wind allowing the gear to be raised quickly.
However there was a major difference in the plane's condition compared to the Navy performance test. The actual Navy test report indicates that the plane was in a "combat" condition for a normal fleet defense mission carrying 1110 pounds of fuel and about 300 pounds of ammunition. The rate of climb in this condition at sea level was 5610 fpm. The planes at Cleveland were probably carrying no ammunition and only a minimum amount of fuel. This would save around 1100 pounds of weight and add tremendously to the rate of climb with no major change to the airplane.
Awesome video.
On a side note with a dollop of trivia, I've been obsessed with Jimmie Thach for a number of years. His contributions to the Navy from the early 1930s (when he was lent out to MGM to fly what was supposed to be Clark Gable's plane in the film Helldivers - Google Thach and Gable to get a great photo of Thach and other naval pilots alongside Gable and Wallace Beery) throughout the decade as a test pilot, in which role he literally became the first navy pilot to fly a Grumman aircraft in the competition that ended Boeing's previous dominance in producing planes for the service. In the lead up to WW II he both trained and easily out flew all of the pilots who became the leading naval pilots of WW II, including Butch O'Hare (his preferred wingman and only pilot who made him work in a dogfight), David McCampbell, and Alex Vraciu. Prior to the start of the war he developed his Beam Defense (later redubbed "The Thach Weave"), which Bull Halsey refused permission to implement as a standard tactic. But at Midway, with nearly the entire Japanese CAP swarming Thach and the two Rookie pilots flying with him, he ordered them to implement the Weave. For over 15 minutes the entire CAP struggled to shoot down Thach and his two rookies (after the final American torpedo plane had been dealt with), so that when the dive bombers arrived ,they were astonished to discover no defending Japanese fighters. At Midway, however, Thach was 37, and upon returning from combat was put in charge of producing training materials for new fighter pilots. Working closely with Walt Disney (I mean, the studio, but also the man), he wrote, provided technical aid, and narrated ten short films for use in training (most of these films can be found on CZcams). Late in the war he became Admiral John McCain aide (that's the grandfather of the senator), under whom he planned and oversaw those gargantuan thousand plane raids of Japan and designed the "Big Blue Blanket " defense against the kamikaze. After the war he became a carrier captain, ending that part of his career as captain of the Midway class carrier USS Franklin Delano Roosevelt. From there he went on to create the anti-submarine branch of the Navy (an award with his name is still given to the ship or unit in the branch most exemplifying the goals of the service).
So here is the trivia. In the 1960s, in one of Thach's final assignments (he had long been an admiral at this point), he was put in command of the aircraft acquisition department. He had two major achievements in this role. The first was to put the final nail in Defense Secretart Robert McNamara dream of making the F-111 the main fighter for all branches of the US Military. With his background, he was able to explain why the F-111 could never become an effective carrier-based aircraft. And following that, he oversaw the specs for a next-generation fighter for the Navy, to replace the F-4 Phantom. The aircraft that eventually fulfilled the specs was the F-14 Tomcat. Quite a career.
Wow, thanks for that awesome post.
I’m so happy
M KLM
Great post!!
Hands down your videos are the most detailed aircraft reference. Viewers do not know how time consuming the research takes to put a video such as this together. Thank you for posting.
That Bearcat at 29:38 is I believe the one I fueled up when I worked at a small airport in Farmington New Mexico in the the 1970s. That plane and a Mustang stopped there on their way to the Reno air races for fuel. After fueling, they took off and the Mustang was granted a low pass over the airstrip at full speed... Awesome.
EDIT: I had a guy ask me to build a model for him of a plane his uncle flew. He gave me a home movie on disk that he had. It was in color and was of an airshow in Texas. It had several Bearcats, Hellcats, Twin Mustangs, Buccaneers and a flyby from an early B-36 (no outboard jets) and other late 40's - early 50s planes in it. It is dated 1950 and all the planes are still in US Navy markings so it may have been from a Navy base airshow. I haver never posted to CZcams but I might have to do it just to share this video with every one as it is really cool.
K.
.
.
K.
.k.
K.
K.
Please
How on earth did i miss this channel.
Great content
I don't know, but I'm glad you're here.
The Bearcat is the plane that impressed me the most at Duxford air show. So powerful and fast
These videos are great for answering questions that always plagued me, specifically about what was used in Korea and why. Why Corsairs instead of Bearcats? Range, payload, reliability, durability . . . Why P51s instead of the obviously superior P47 for ground attack? Unit cost and availability are what I recall from your P47 series. Outstanding work.
A Bearcat and Tigercat vs japanese late war planes what-if (like the one with the US naval aircrafts vs the Luftwaffe) is also sorely needed.
Because the P47 would have been shot down at the same rate as a Mustang. This was clearly born out in Korea comparing Corsair and Mustang which had identical loss ratios.
@@FeiHuWarhawk not necessarily
@@FeiHuWarhawkNot to mention that a P-51 could throw more munitions at the enemy per gallon of fuel, as compared to the P-47.
The French used Bearcats in Indo-China - I just saw a u-tube video showing some burned out Bearcats at Dien Bien Phu (1954).
It struck me as being a wildly inappropriate plane to use, with its short range.
Maybe the French got them cheap from the US - who knows.
Thanks Greg I was hoping you’d do this plane. I would also love to see one on the F7F Tigercat.
+1
Hell, yes!!
It was a bit cumbersome
All ww2 twin "fighters" please 🙏
The two coolest sounding aircraft that I have ever heard in my life were a Tigercat and a Tomcat.
My Uncle actually joined the marines to fly this badboy. He did, but also went to Korea in F9fs, F2hs, F4u s. He did fly all the ww2 Grummans. His description of the Bearcat's acceleration is obscene.
Can't blame him, the Bearcat and the Tigercat are some of the most beautiful plans of the period.
@@dusk6159 The Douglas A-26/B-26 Invader as well. They all had a different aesthetic than earlier planes. On the other hand, despite being highly effective, the Skyraider - another great plane that barely missed WW II - always looked a bit out of proportion all the way around.
THX GREG your passion for these late model WWII planes without flying or pilot (as far as I know) is astounding. Besides videos you should get what you know in to hard copy books so people can purchase either for ref. Or viewing. I am sad the late model P47N weren't used in Korea. My thought on Bearcat and conclusions the same, for air racing and in its specific directive it was great but get it out 5Corsair and P47N blow it out of the sky. RBT
Exceptional. I have listened to this multiple times especially whilst reading “Devotion”
My dad attended an air show in the late 40s an F-80 Shooting Star and a F-82 Twin mustang raced in a dive leveled out over the runway and climbed out off the end of the runway. The F-82 out ran the F-80 until they started to climb out. This proves what you were talking about with the jet, as it accelerated down the runway it's engine got into the power curve and overwhelmed the prop plane. Every time you produce one of these I always learn something usually many things due to the angle of your presentation. Thanks john g
It just makes you realise how superior the Corsair was and what they achieved with basically the same engine .I always thought the Bearcat was the pinnacle of prop airplanes ,but it wasn't.
The F4U-5 had TWIN right angle first stage centrifugal superchargers (one on each side) and both "turned backwards" (opposite the rotation of the landing gear wheels). This necessitated mirror image blower wheels and volutes.
Luke Hobbs was the genius in charge of testing and development of the 2800 (when I was little I met him and shook his hand)(Postwar my Dad worked for PW here in KC).
In Hartford where and when they were testing the first -34 engine a tremendous amount of racket and heat and hardly any boost came out of the huge fancy supercharger.
Mister Hobbs heard the commotion from his office, walked swiftly down to the test cell and motioned the boys to shut it down.
"Fellas I think we got the blower wheels swapped side-to-side." was all he said - and he was right : D
Cool that he could diagnose that from sound alone
@@MrNicoJac Agreed totally - but looking back on it - centrifugal blowers are really mechanically very simple devices. How many things only have one moving part, lol ?
That’s a very interesting story, thanks!
Those twin blowers on side of -32 are 2nd stage, and are what gave the -5 its spectacularly high (esp. for Grumman/naval fighters) rated altitude.
Perhaps interestingly, DB was using this dual approach in it's 2nd stage design work...
@@josephstabile9154 My friend on aircraft engines the stages are universally numbered from the system's air inlet.
The fact that these Bearcats never saw good enough amount of combat in Korea when USN transitioned to the Panther jets as the main fleet air defence fighter. Some even called the Bearcat the rate of climb monster, since the USN emphasized on boom and zoom tactic where the USN fighters would climb into higher altitude than enemy aircraft formation and then pounce on them and then climb up again. I would personally say the true replacement of the F4F Wildcat is the Bearcat, Hellcat was basically a stopgap since the USN needed an aircraft that could keep up with the Zeroes, but there's nothing to brag and not a lot of change from the F4F.
Love all the superprops.. Fury , Bearcat , Tigercat , super Corsair , “super” Mustangs.. all of em
...MB5, CA-15, Hornet, Ta-152, P-47N, Spiteful, Do 335, P-38K...
@@SoloRenegade love the Do 335
@@SoloRenegade thanks for mentioning the Spiteful 👍 Both it and the Seafang are awsome aircraft that unfortunately never got to see service. They need some love.
@@SoloRenegade The Pfeil is such a cool design!!
Great video as always Greg.
The Sea Fury is one of my favourites, but looking forward to a super-prop series
Another Carrier Based Super Prop Plane.
Another ripping episode from Greg .. superb. You know I've often contemplated the pending wonders of Allied airpower had WWII gone on for another 12 months. From the U.S. the Bearcat, F-7, Shooting Star, the F-82, late variants of the P-47 and P-51 etc. From the Brits; the Sea Fury, DH 103 Hornet, Vampire etc. From us Aussies; well not much in the air but on the ground probably more of the same which achieved the first land based victories over Imperial Japan and Germany at Milne Bay and Tobruk respectively. Rock on crew .. rock on.
I love these videos. As a WW2 aviation enthusiast, I thank you Greg for the invaluable insight and knowledge you bring to these videos. I always learn something new.
Watching the Rare Bear race at Reno was nothing short of amazing!
Watching this on a weeknight and couldn't figure out why someone would be using a chainsaw at 10pm. Took me a minute to figure out it was background noise in the video. Still a great video though! Definitely one of the most underrated channels on CZcams for WWII aviation.
Thanks for watching. I normally make these videos in hotel rooms, so background noises are a part of the deal.
I thought it was interesting that the F8F was in the same ballpark size wise as the 2 German contemporaries, but had much more wing surface area.
Thank you for another great video !
This truly is the best CZcams channel, and it's not even a close competition either.
Very surprised to learn that the Bearcat has so many compromises, It's one thing to decide naval combat doesn't take place at high altitude, it's really another to decide that the planes max g-loading is going to be 5g's. I guess you said later cats had strengthened wings but the range seems like a real problem even with drop tanks... seems like a kamikazi interceptor design rather than a real fighter.
The whole idea of the Bearcat was a point defense fighter. It was meant to get in the air fast, climb fast and fight right away. The drop tanks were more or less for ferry range or loiter time. And in WW2, you had to make compromises in high altitude and low altitude performance. Spitfires had to make those compromises, low altitude models had clipped wings and single speed superchargers. If you are fighting at low altitude, and you have weight and maintenance concerns to worry about, why would you add a second supercharger speed or a second stage of supercharging or an extended wing tip to fly at altitudes you won't see?
I was surprised too. I assumed the Bearcat would out perform everything in WW2 since it was one the last WW2 planes put into production.
Maybe Grumman foresaw Reno's unlimited class and wanted to have something to compete in that arena? ;-)
@@Carstuff111
The Seafire variant of the Spitfire is a prime example of what you're saying, not only did it have a single stage single speed supercharger but it was actually optimized for low altitude performance by having it's supercharger impeller "cropped down" since the Seafire's basic role was ground support for troops landing on the beach, it also gave it a pretty quick time to altitude for around 10,000 ft which is about where carrier launched fighter's would intercept incoming enemy aircraft for the fleet defense role.
Not only does having a single stage single speed supercharger a benefit for those reasons but they're cheaper, are less of a load on the pilot in combat and the possibility of a malfunction from battle damage causing the supercharger to shift into it's high range and overboost the engine causing it to blow up is eliminated, close air support pilots have very little margin for an error or problem that would cause them to bail out because of the low altitude they're operating at, the less that can go wrong the better for them.
It makes total sense to me though.
As discussed, mostly on this channel I believe, fighter tactics had evolved to the diving-down-and-shooting-past kind.
Dogfights in which you won by out-turning your opponent were just not a viable tactic (reliably, against Japanese fighter planes, in WW2).
And, if you don't _need_ tight turns for dogfights anyways (or, rather, if it was a losing hand to bet on), then it makes sense to focus your design in a way that helps pilots who do the 'right' thing _while_ incentivizing them to **not** do the 'wrong' thing.
And 5G is plenty for positioning turns, pre-combat, right?
Greg. I can never say Thank You enough. I am a huge fan of WW2 aviation. There have always been gaps that I didnt understand. But your videos have closed these gaps and given me a much better appreciation and understanding. Thank You.
A real gem, as with all of Gregs' videos, they are very well thought out and presented with an authority that leaves no room for doubt about their accuracy.
I’ve seen a lot of current warbird pilots fly different WW2 fighters at various fly-days and airshows. John Sessions, Carter Teeters to name a few. The smile on their faces and joy they express after after the high performance of flying the Bearcat is second to none. An ear-to-ear grin doesn’t describe it. Hearing them talk about getting near 70 inches of manifold pressure with awe in their voices is something indescribable.
In addition, having talked to those pilots after they flew the Bearcat, I can tell you that it took a week to get the smile off their face! Wonderful airplane to view in action.
Great choice for a video Greg. The Bearcat is a straight up BEAST! Hot, uncomfortable, and about as practical as a funny car. lol But Geez, that thing can climb.
A couple of facts:
Grumman was so obsessed with weight savings that there was no re-stow mechanism for the arresting hook. It was a simple spring-loaded plunger that ground crew had to shove back into the tail after landing. Also, the windscreen on the F8F-2 was lengthened compared to the -1. Probably to accommodate the new gunsight. It's about as subtle as the changes to the vertical fin, but if you look close you can see it.
The wings were folded manually.
@@1musicsearcher Yep. The deck crew would insert a bar into the outer wing panel and manhandle it up or down.
Another superb video! I have been waiting for this one, and the explanation about the relative costs of Hellcat vs Bearcat is very revealing
I don't know much about engineering and all, but I love ww2 planes and always love to just listen to you ramble on about this stuff while doing some chores or whatever. Thank you for making these and giving me a fun and relaxing time while listening to you.
Near the end of the war in the Pacific, the Navy was pushing for outfitting our carriers with interceptor aircraft of the highest-performing types 'to combat the threat of low-flying suicide aircraft'. They worked on the F2G Corsair with the R4360 engine, and a few others. The F8F performance from brake release to practical altitude exceeded all others. The frangible wing tip thing sounds zany now, but at one time, ejection seats were killing almost as many pilots as they were saving. I think Grumman got a chance to build the hotrod they craved, and most knew that jets were coming soon. I think it is important to accept that aircraft designers generally know what they're doing, and Grumman built the fighter with the range and performance the Navy specified. I'm guessing as well that with thousands of neophyte pilots in training, the F8F would be easier to learn to fly on and off a carrier than the F4U. I enjoyed this video, quite educational, and even some of the apples-to-oranges comparisons with other fighters that were designed for entirely different tasks, such as, high-altitude, long-range bomber escort, extended maritime patrol/attack, or fleet-defense standing top-cover patrols.
Now that was another high density information video… again. Well Greg, excellent work! Thank you very much! Go ahead and dig in deep into the glorious age of propeller driven marvels.
I can just imagine some engineer at Grumman going "No no, I can make this work", even after the Explosive Bolt solution didn't pan out 🤣
fucking interns...
I was thinking about using a string - if it snapped in one wing tip, it would release the other side too.
(you can imagine my reaction when Greg said "doubled down" on the insanity🥲)
But I hadn't thought of using explosives, LOL
(there's a "Muricans"-joke in there somewhere, haha)
@@appa609 The guys from Brewster ended up somewhere, after all.
He'd have a place in today's auto industry, if he'd been immortal.
@@donberry7657
Seems like his name is Elon then, considering the performance of FSD 😅
Great video. I still love the Bearcat but this makes me realize why it wasn’t used longer. Thank you
Just love this plane - along with the Sea Fury. Thank goodness that the need for carrier operations kept these lovely ladies flying into the early jet age.
I saw many Bearcats racing at the Reno Air Races. Your description of the compromises to produce a Kamikaze killer make me glad that the concept wasn't tested in battle. I understand the reasons why early jets didn't match the climb rate of the Bearcat--the jets might be faster, but with "angle of attack" issues they had to fly farther to reach altitude (among other reasons). The Bearcat seemed to have been designed to reduce the reliance on flying a continuous fighter CAP over the task force. I'd need to know more about the successful USN fighter CAP tactics to determine if being able to go from deck to 20,000 feet and then dive on Kamikaze was reasonable.
The original armament of the Bearcat was four caliber .50 machine guns with 300 rounds per gun or 1200 rounds total. In combat, machine gun ammunition in fighter planes was often reduced for some missions to lighten the airplane--giving it better climb or more loiter time. I estimate 12 to 15 seconds of continuous .50 caliber machine gun fire with the AN/M2 caliber .50 fixed machine guns or putting out something like 56 bullets in a one-second burst. Britain insisted that the later models of the F4F Wildcat have six machine guns and some of the FM had only five--I've read that US Navy fighter pilots thought that four machine guns were just fine, and that the additional two guns were excess weight. Running out of machine gun ammunition happened in USN service during dogfights but doesn't seem to have been a big deal. The larger 20mm cannon had a lower rate of fire and less ammo (by round count--not by weight) but each hit would do more damage. I think that Grumman wanted the four 20mm (which were not ready for prime time even in 1945) but took the advice of US Navy fighter pilots that four caliber .50 machine guns would be better than six, especially when the weight factor is considered. The later AN/M3 Caliber .50 aircraft machine guns had about 30% faster cyclic rate but wasn't standardized until April 1945.
www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/m3.htm#:~:text=The%20M3.50%20caliber%20machine%20gun%20%28also%20referred%20to,while%20it%20is%20being%20fed%20into%20the%20gun.
So, if the Bearcat had been armed with the uprated AN/M3, the burst fire from four M3 guns would have equaled the burst fire from six M2 guns more or less, with less weight--but duration of fire would have gone down about a third for the same ammunition loadout.
Good thing that the Japanese were not using B-29 bombers with guided bombs to target American ships--though the Betty bomber launching Baka manned bombs might have been a real headache.
Having read the articles by Walter Boyne on the Bearcat. One of the anecdotal story he tells is of a race between the Bearcat and the Mustang as to which was a better plane. They ended up wingtip to wingtip on a runway with both planes at max throttle and, on a pre-arranged signal, both planes released their brakes. Before the Mustang could even get his wheels up, the Bearcat had made one gunnery pass over it and was turning to make a second pass. Lots of money changed hands that day!
I believe the Hellcat was the perfect aircraft for its time during WWII. It was fairly easy to fly with no nasty habits. Since many of the pilots coming out flight school only had flight time in planes without the performance of the Hellcat. Thus stepping up to the Hellcat, with its easy of use and no nasty habits gave the young pilots a lot confidence in their planes to ease into carrier training. Plus landing on a carrier was much easier in a Hellcat.
Lastly, the Bearcat came out at the perfect time to provide its now experienced pilots with a true air superiority aircraft.
I almost wonder what would have happened if the war went on long enough for an invasion. Japan had been hoarding planes enough for massive Kamikaze attacks.
I think you're right about the Hellcat.
Amazing content Greg! you are truly the GOAT man.
I can't wait for the British super props like the Sea Fury, Supermarine Spiteful and SeaFang !
And the Hornet, and the Seafire FR47!
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles wyvern?
The Hornet for sure...Eric Brown, the UK's king of test pilots said it was his favorite
@@marklittle8805 The Hornet had super prop performance without the torque issues of the single engine super props (or the reliability issues of single engine fighters with contra-rotating props).
@@fafner1 it was a unique bird to be sure.....
Grumman‘s insistence on using the dangerously impractical break away wings reminds me of Ferdinand Porsche's insistence on producing a highly experimental and temperamental electric drive for his super tank in the middle of a war when trying such experiments was totally impractical! It just shows that you can't let the engineers run the show!
Corky Myer, Grumman test pilot, discusses the wingtip explosive testing in his excellent book. It is a fantastic read, he flew everything from wildcats to 60’s jets. He is a great storyteller and has a chapter on flying all of the major types US, English, German and Japanese.
Trivia answer: Japanese pilots, used the generic term ’Grumman’ (グラマン）for the F6F and F4F, but the Mustang was called 'mustang'. In the same way that many American pilots called most of the fighters they saw 'Zeros' the Japanese called most U.S. fighters 'Grumman's.
F8F must've been a blast to fly.
Closest I ever got to experiencing Bearcat-like climb rates was late one afternoon in a hot-rod Cessna Caravan jump plane. The stock 675 HP Pratt and Whitney turbine had been replaced with 850 HP Garret and the stock 3-bladed prop with a bigger 4-blade unit. The plane's interior was also stripped, so it was both much lighter than stock and much more powerful. This particular flight was the last of the day, there were only two jumpers in back and I had just enough fuel for the one run to 14,000', our normal jump altitude. Anyway, I don't know what the record is for jump planes to 14K, but if I didn't set it that day it was pretty close, as the 'Van was going almost straight up. Can't remember the fpm but it was way more than I'd ever seen before. Flying jumpers is a great job for Walter Mitty-type, wannabe fighter pilots....
And similarly, the Germans called B-17s "Boeings", but the B-24 "Liberators"
@@bronco5334Germans also called 4-engined bombers 'dicke Autos' (Big Cars/Vehicles), enemy fighters 'Indians', cargo planes "Möbelwagon' (furniture movers), when they got clobbered by a fighter they'd say 'he blew his nose on me', called their fighters a 'Mühle' (mill), etc.
When I read the book Devotion by Adam Makos, I was surprised that the squadron originally operated Bearcats, but they changed to Corsairs before going to Korea. It makes sense now. Thanks, great content.
I had the same question when I read that book.
Had the same question when I saw the movie..... why leave behind the Bearcat and take a Corsair.....
With the growing popularity of this video maybe it's worth doing a series on super props much like your p47 series. I think allot can be learned from the attempts to push propeller driving aircraft to the max and why they have a brick wall in terms of performance. I would love to have more info on the p51h. If I remember correctly with WEP it was pushing over 90inhg manifold pressure. Contra props are a interesting topic that's never discussed in a in depth manor and I would love to learn more about turbo props as well. Great content Greg I will be joining your patreon and I highly recommend any other enthusiast do the same. This info really makes your sims come to life.
Great video, the Bearcat is one of my favorite planes.
One thing that I think should be pointed out about the Bearcat is the wing loading, it is relatively high. The Bearcat's wing area is only 244 sq ft, compared to 314 sq ft in the Corsair, and 334 sq ft in the Hellcat. Even accounting for the lighter weight, the Bearcat still has a higher wing loading than either of them. I strongly suspect that this was yet another design choice made to improve rate of climb. A lot of people don't know that wing loading feed into the equation for maximum rate of climb speed, and consequently see a low wing loading as being a purely good thing. But like everything in aircraft design, it's a compromise. A low wing loading helps with the turn rate, but hurts the climb rate, and vice versa, and it's clear in the case of the Bearcat that they put more emphasis on the climb rate.
It was mentioned in another article about the Bearcat, one main reason for its smallness was to replace the F4F Wildcat on the Navy's much smaller "escort carriers" that were fairly extent by the end of WW2, more then totally replace the USN's inventory of its larger fighter-bomber F4U's, etc.
The R2800-32W actually had two superchargers for the first stage. The other one was on the other side of the engine which can't be seen in your picture. They were called sidewinders. There is a good picture of the -32W in Graham White's "Allied Aircraft Piston Engines of WWII".
I worked on and flew in many aircraft that had the R-2800. It could take a pounding and still run.
The time and effort that goes in to these videos is superb, Greg is knowledgeable guy.
There are anecdotal claims that the Bearcat was seen as a direct replacement for FM-2s on the USN's escort carriers where a shorter take-off run and smaller size was preferred. The lack of range and payload would not have been a practical detriment as apart from fleet defence, the lack of space means you can only take a light external load for CAS missions which escort carriers extensively provided for during amphibious operations. The end of the war saw the mothballing of most of these ships so there was not that much need for the Bearcat in an environment where fleet carriers dominated.
Dude! I just posted how the Bearcat seems to me the Navy wanting a superior answer to the escort carriers variant of the Wildcat but with Hellcat power.
I guess it's true, great minds do think alike:)
Awesome video by Greg.
This sounds sensible. But fleet defense not CAS
@@toomanyuserids Fighters on the escort carriers were extensively used in both the fleet defence and CAS mission.
My father was a naval aviator winged in 1941. He never flew carrier aircraft but knew many who did. He lost two good friends flying the Bearcats. Both accidents were in -1 and both were essentially the same cause. You had to be careful about power settings on takeoff. The plane would flip over within a few feet of the ground due to excessive torque. My dad says that’s the reason for the -2’s 12” taller vertical tail. Torque control at lower speeds.
This is the plane that made the greatest impression on me when I saw one fly at Duxford (England) a few years back. It vibrated your chest on the ground yet was as smooth as silk in the air.
Same with me when I saw one fly for the first time. So nimble despite that huge, thick engine and had a very unique sound compared to other big radials. Seemed that you felt it more than heard it when it went over....and that climb! Wow!
I remember quite well being at the Reno air races in the 90’s. The V12’s would fly by and what a sweet sound. Then Dreadnought went by with his massive 4360 and wow what a sound. Then Rear Bear went past with his 3350 and a three bladed prop and it was unworldly. Lol. Not only the sound but you could feel it rumbling as he went by.
Great vid! As a kid mid-50's, I remember watching the Jet v Bearcat climb race at Oakland NAS, and yes, the Bearcat won. Even better, the race from parallel runways was double sided... from roll to altitude to stop. Jets not even close.
Love the F8 bearcat to bits. Really the apotheosis of piston engine fighters. As a real world pilot I would love the chance to fly one of these. One can imagine an alternate history where the Pacific war lasted into 1946 and these were used for their original purpose: Killing kamikaze’s.
Great presentation as always. Love to see you do the F7F.
Yet another informative video Greg. Learned alot more about the Bearcat than I ever could have expected.
A hotrod of an airplane but one that was ultimately too little, too late to be of much use beyond it's designed goals. Still its nuts what Grumman did to get what they could out of that airframe.
Excellent video Greg. Your discussion of the later model Corsair makes me hope for a video on the later mode / Korea era Corsairs. If anyone hasn’t read the Adam Makos book Devotion I highly recommend it. A lot of USN ground attack ops using Corsairs and so much more.
I worked for EATON for 10 years. Yes, they did make sodium filled valves for aircraft engines during WWII. I have one stashed in a box somewhere. They also made sodium filled exhaust valves for the aftermarket automotive high performance engines.
I operated the R-2800 about 3000 hours in the DC-6. It sounds like you did your homework on that engine. Well done. It was amazing when you did a wet takeoff compared to a dry takeoff.
allright Greg...i saw now some videos from you and i have to say something.
What you created here is simply a long needed "no BS" and "no superficial bla bla" format on youtube...thank you, i love it!
short Backgroung if interested:
I studied mechanical engenering (aeroengines) in germany and worked on projects with turbine engines incl. reverse engineering old ones. I worked several years as a flight instructor after my time in the university and in developement. now im finally in my ATPL training, making my dream come true. while going over all these "performance", "aircraft general knowledge" and "principles of flight" subjects, i can compare it to your claims to learn and as well as the messurment systems you describe and im amazed how much knowledge you can put easy understandable in those videos. since im a german with a little experience in russian language and engines, i can read and understand the tables and diagrams you sometimes show. I just can imagine the amount of work you put in your videos.
Thanks buddy. I love Germany, I'm in Morbach right now. Although I'm getting sick of the draconian covid stuff here.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Oh nice, its a really nice place and yes...its super anoying. greetings from Berlin.
Whenever I visit the IWM Duxford Museum Greg, I always take time to check out the flying Bearcat in the workshops. I find the cost equation of aircraft quite an interesting subject. I know this might be a little academic in WW2 USA. In Europe it might be a little different. For instance, it is often said the ME109 cost half a Spitfire, a Jumo jet engine half to a third of a V12 ICE engine.
Can’t wait for mor super-prop videos. Just a fascinating time in aviation and some amazing aircraft.
As always, great presentation of a good subject, Greg. I always get a laugh out of your "you will never guess how the engineers solved this problem" segments. I always wonder about the first guy who discovered something like, "the wing tips didn't break off symmetrically, and there was no time to recover." Thank you for this and your many excellent videos.
I can imagine the test pilot muttering to himself about flying a plane that's designed to blow its wings off.
Bet he didn't tell his wife what he was going to do at work that day.
I learned years ago they did something similar with the spitfire. They glued peas to the fuselage to work out where it needed flush riveting and where it didn't. This may have been done initially one the earlier float equiped versions but that's how they did it
Always a joy to listen to your in depth analyses
Excellent video with much new information on a plane I thought I knew well. Remember the famous picture of a Bearcat upside down with gear, flaps, and hook down on a waveoff. With all that power and short wingspan, torque roll was an ensign killer. Believe the one in the photo simply completed the roll and kept flying.
@Greg, you need to add Corky Meyer’s “Flight Journal” to your sources, you’ll find the Hellcat to Corsair speed comparaison and the FW-190 influence on Bearcat design.
I was thinking the "insane" aspect was the lack of AC not the exploding wings. Lol
Edit: yet another excellent video, Greg.
Life's all about priorities?
weird, i always thought of the F8F as if the US government brought Grumman an Fw 190 and said "build us one of these". the F6F is obviously derived from the F4F, while the F8F in size shape and layout is exactly like the Fw 190 (although to a lesser or greater degree every radial figter after the Fw 190 looked like it). It is the same size, if has the same shrouded exhaust, short wing span, bubble canopy, wide track gear, singe large fuel tank under the seat. Then they let Grumman do whatever detail work needed to turn it into the fighter they needed. Of course you can see features of the Fw 190 on any any late war radial fighter. But the closest to the Fw 190 overall are the La-7, the Tempest, the Ki-100, and the F8F. the La-7 and ki-100 are both built from inline fighters, and the Tempest is much larger. The F8F is the only one that looks like a direct analogue next to the Fw 190.
My favorite piston warbird to fly! (Not having flown a P-51H.) Just a joy to fly, point it and it goes. Still easy to land like a Grumman, well laid out cockpit. The cockpit is a bit hot. Visibility over the nose better than the F6F, and of course to 6. Now, like a few of the later USN fighters, the drop tanks on the F8F feed the main fuel tank, so you don’t have to subtract your start, taxi, take off fuel from total range. You should have a mostly full main internal tank unlike a P-38, P-47, P-51 etc. Also, it cruises faster at the same fuel flow carrying that belly tank at 10,000 feet than a clean F4U or F6F.
nice insight! thanks for sharing!
I did read a biography of an American fleet/test pilot who considered the bearcat to be a bit of a hot ship. Apply a too much throttle trying to counteract too much sink and it would turn itself upside down and smash into the transom of the carrier. Lovely clean looker.
I think it was The Wrong stuff by John Moore
Torque was a general issue with the single engine single prop "super props". Flying at low airspeed and suddenly add a lot of power - the engine tries to spin the prop faster, but instead rolls the airplane in the opposite direction. Contra-rotating props were tried a lot, but in general were heavy and suffered from reliability issues.
As the guys who restored both the Focke Wulf and Bearcat at the NASM, ( National Air & Space Museum), told me, they are almost the same plane. In fact, they refer to the FW-190 as the "Teutonic Bearcat"
That’s a very interesting factoid, thanks!
Another exellent video, Greg! I must say, I'm sometimes a bit overwelmed with all the knowledge you throw at us. There are multiple video's I had to watch more than once to understand everything you explain. Though I'm enjoying every video you put out there, so please keep it up!
I grew up on Long Island and Grumman was the largest employer, with Fairchild Republic and with all the parts suppliers, almost everyone had someone in the family that worked in the airplane industry. Today there is nothing left, terrible.
Great video! The Bearcat really displays the kinds of design compromises involved in designing war planes and why comparing this plane versus that plane can be very complicated. In the case of the Bearcat, its singular purpose was that as a fleet interceptor to shoot down kamikazes.
Maybe I blinked and missed it but in addition to its tight "fleet defense" role, I'd add: FROM ESCORT CARRIERS. There were like 3-4 escort carriers per regular carrier and none could carry the Hellcat. And even the regular carriers couldn't (according to USN) carry the Corsair. The Bearcat wasn't just small and simple to be light for climb speed, but for ability to work on escort carriers. Granted the wildcat COULD be used on escort carriers (and thus was kept around for years despite the Corsairs and Hellcats) but it in turn had a far smaller engine, albeit with dual superchargers. Even if the Corsair was faster AND bigger payload AND longer range etc. etc., it could only do so from airfields, not decks, much less tiny decks.
The ability to easily operate from escort carriers was a big plus for the Bearcat.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles my point though is that it was more than just a plus, it was both a REQUIREMENT, and a CONSTRAINT... a constraint the Corsair and Hellcat didn't have to meet. Not having to meet it allowed them more weight, which meant more supercharger stages, more performance, more fuel, more payload etc. So while YES it's fun comparison and even necessary comparison to make (and which the Bearcat loses) in a sense it's not a fair or practical comparison, due to the other planes not having to meet the constraint.
In other words, if you want air superiority over an escort carrier, Bearcat's your boy. Otherwise we shouldn't expect it to have a chance, and no surprise, it doesn't.
As a youth I loved the Corsairs, then more recently, the Bearcat, but from your channel I think I've learned enough that the Hellcat is really the model closest to this aging engineer's heart. It lacks the Corsair's specs and doesn't quite match the combat record, but in contrast, the ease of flying for new pilots, safety, visibility, and the price/performance make it seem, like the Fw-190, the "adult" choice. I also believe Soviet/Russian fighters similarly had exposed rivets on most of the panels not in direct force of the wind until the 90s or even 00s. Just flush where it really counted. Not sure if its true.
You are correct. Having to operate from the Escort carriers was a constraint.
I love this channel for these videos. I can not wait to see more! And I admit, I have watched a few of your older videos more than once just to keep things fresh for newer videos.
Beautiful as always, Greg. Great information and insights. Tickled to see two videos this week. Great work, thanks so much. Grumman was making some serious decisions changes...I think it all worked out okay with the Tomcat...but there were some bumps in the road. Again, great work!
Another wonderful and as usual informative video. Can't wait for the next few videos about this fascinating category of fighter aircraft. They are my favourite propeller driven aircraft.
An interesting British fighter prototype that never went into any real manufacturer was the Martin Baker MB5. While you were talking about the worst cockpit layout, this aircraft was apparently renowned for its brilliant layout.
Anyway, I'm trying to find a picture of a navalised Me109 taking off from an aircraft carrier so we can talk!
Keep up the great work.
I wonder if Grumman should have spent more time developing the F6F-6 (four-propped version). Maybe, even an F6F-7 with a bubble canopy, 4x20mm cannon, uprated R2800, and a four-blade paddle prop would have been excellent for post WWII use.
I have been patiently waiting for this ever since I discovered your channel. The F8F (in my humble opinion) doesn't get the attention it deserves since it didn't shoot down thousands of A6M's in the pacific. It is by far my favorite prop plane.
Jeezus Greg, you are a total nut for detail.! With love and best wishes from Oz. And thanks.
Knew little of the Bearcat until I saw one at a small air show in Burnet, TX a few years ago. They had one that was restored so well it looked factory new and had never seen one before. Up close it seemed like it was nearly all engine and prop. It took off from the airstrip and immediately went nearly straight up like a rocket. The climb rate on that plane truly was incredible! I’ve been in love with the Bearcat ever since. Thanks Greg!
There is a Bearcat based at the Duxford Imperial War Museum, UK. If you catch it on a flying day you are in for a real treat!
Another excellent video! That is absolutely insane that they designed the plane to rip part of the wings off if you over-G and even more insane to double down on that by adding explosive bolts so that both would rip off.
It's cute that Greg's max extent of click-baiting is to put one exclaimation point in the title.
Love you and your content Greg! I've learned alot from your videos. :D
Thanks Greg; who would have thought explosively detaching wing tips wouldn't catch on? Looking forward to some more super props; sleeve valves and all.
been hoping for this vid, so excited to watch!
Airplane history is just awesome!all of it
Thanks for a great analysis of the Bearcat, Greg. With regard to your cost per plane theory, Grumman was designing planes to meet Navy Bureau of Aeronautics (BuAer) specifications. BuAer set the specs that would drive cost per plane. This was not a Grumman Corp strategy. And with regard to aircraft carrier space, these planes occupied very expensive real estate and defended a very expensive national asset. Therefor relatively cheap airplanes that could not defend that carrier would be a bad investment by BuAer (later NAVAIR for the F-14). The F6F was great plane but was relatively cheap because it was an upgraded F4F with a wider track landing gear and R-2800 engine; a very evolutionary design approach. Thanks again for the great video.
Badass little plane.
Great content, thanks for posting!
Another great video. Looking forward to the upcoming discussion on British super props and their sleeve valve engines.
Thanks for a most informative video dedicated to my favorite piston aircraft. Having looked at French-language sources, I, too, could not find any reference to F8Fs ever engaging in air-to-air combat in Indochina. The French used it mainly for air reconnaissance and ground attack.
Once again, you are bringing reality to common conjectures.
Please do a video of the Grumman Tigercat!
Perfect timing to watch for dinner this evening, just gotta make something nice.
This channel is ridiculously fantastic.
Didn’t know that the bearcat had a one stage supercharger instead of the 2 stage superchargers on the hellcat and Corsair which basically means that the Bearcat was designed to fight 20000 feet and under, thanks for that info 👍🏽
My father was a Navy carrier pilot and instructor during Ww2.
He had warm words for the Hellcat as a fig h ter. He also very much liked the Corsair
However he felt the Bearcat was hands down the best carrier fighter plane of the war.
Excellent historical & technical overview of the Bearcat - I really didn't know much about this aircraft until now. I keep looking at the side profile of this aircraft, and it reminds me of the Sea Fury (different beast). Thanks!
It's what they call "parallel evolution" in the animal kingdom :). Similar problems: how to squeeze as much performance out of plane intended for carriers ? Similar solutions, biggest engine you can reasonably bolt on the smallest frame than can safely cope with carrier landings. Results in using a huge radial in the front (because for equal power an inline engine is longer so the shorter radial was preferred to save space), "smooth lines" for speed (always that chunky look :)) ) and a cockpit as forward as feasible with a bubble canopy for the pilot. If you squint your eyes a little all naval prop fighters tend to look like this by the end of WW2.
F7F-3 used 34W with a lower max setting of 66" instead of 70" for both low and high gears.
AU-1 used the -83W, almost identical to -34W. Used 70" for Low gear and 66" for High gear.
Do you know how many inHg the F8F-2 R-2800-30W ran at maximum power? All I can find is takeoff dry at 60".
70" on low blower for the -34W/-83W is so perplexing. Looking at calibration charts for the -22W/34W, the maximum power line when extrapolated to sea level seems to be only a hair above 60"/2400 HP. This lines up with the quoted power outputs and critical altitudes for the F7F-1 ACP. So where did the extra inches come from? Is it just with a ton of ram air, but simply isn't stated in the SACs? If so, what *does* it actually reach static?
And even more confusingly, I just noticed the combat speed graph on the AU-1's SAC seems to *increase* with altitude to 2k ft before decreasing, unlike its climb and F8F-1 climb+speed graph that decrease from sea level. So does it somehow get enough compression from ram air alone that gains like 20 more inches at that altitude, and puts it on par with the R-2800-42W with intercooled 2 stage SC? None of it makes sense to me... would appreciate if you could bl lend some light on some things that've perplexed me for a long time!
@@pz2233 F8F-2 max manifold seems to be 72'' in flight manual, F4U-5 max manifold is 70''.
In R2800 it seems that with water injection engine runs smoother. In F4U-1 for example if we extrapolate max military to SL this will give us 2100hp, but if we do the same with war emergency it will give us over 2300hp. In P47D, If you run 65'' at Military = 2400hp and with water injection at the same 65'' = over 2600hp.
Now If we go to the DoubleWaspIndex and to the last pages we can see -34 and -83 engines running at 100/130 + ADI and they achieve 2400hp at 56'' at SL. F7F ACP quoting 2400hp with ADI is probably at the same 56''.
If we relate Power Plant chart of F8F-1 manual with SAC and with the Operation Limits Chart (all of them running at 115/145 fuel and no ram), this will give us that at the minimum height of 4000feet Combat power at Low blower engine switches to High Blower. This High Blower runs at 2450hp at 70'', so if we go to the OLC and make a parallel to the Low Blower Military Rating that passes over 2450hp at 4000feet this line will end at SL at 2750HP, exactly what SAC says. So with all this considered I think 2750HP were achieved at static, or if not static at least at low ram climb values at SL. But who would use water injection at such power in static conditions? At most in a emergency climb it will be used after take off with regular 2300HP military rating.
This said AU-1 SAC performance is based only on flight tests while F8F-1 SAC is based partialy at least on calculations, so I will take the AU-1 SAC as the most correct. It is also the one that most makes sense since water injection always has a plus over military, natural in a r2800. It also makes sense that speed increases because engine is able to retain the 70'' 2800Hp up to 2000 feet thanks to the ram air at full velocity, while in the climb graph since the ram is much lower power decreases and climb decreases. Take a look at how all the crit alts in the speed graph are higher thanks to ram and also look at how big the increase in climb is from Military (2300HP) to Combat, this seems to suggest again that at SL and low ram 2800hp is achieved.
About the R2800-42W/18W, in F4U-7 flight manual max manifold is 70'' using 115/145 and water injection, combat allowance goes as follows:
feet --> Manifold --> Blower Position
SL --> F.T. --> Neutral
5000 --> 70 --> Low
10000 --> 70 --> Low
15000 --> 70 --> High
20000 --> 70 --> High
25000 --> F.T --> High
30000 --> F.T --> High
Probably It had 2800HP at SL like AU-1 but SL would be already the crit alt and since Low Blower power at 70 would be around 2600HP it would change to Low very quickly, at least in a climb. It is worth to note that in F4U-7 the nose intake is for a big oil cooler located in the engine accesory compartment, Main Stage (Neutral blower) and Auxiliary Stage (Low and High blower) are fed from the wing intakes, while in the F4U-4 the nose intake is for the the Auxiliary Stage, the Main Stage is fed from the wing intakes and has two oil coolers one on each wing intake.
@@Metrallaroja Wow! I never thought of extrapolating high blower combat HP to SL with the low blower military line! Thank you for the insight. This has boggled my mind for so long.
I'm still confused at what manifold pressure 2750 HP is achieved on low blower, considering how little excess MP is available. Maybe ram air increases HP over 2750 HP?