[Slater]

Although the two never met in combat, how would the F8F have fared in a maneuvering contest against the Zero?

[hojutsuka]

Slater, on Sat 23 Jul 2005 1359, said:

Although the two never met in combat, how would the F8F have fared in a maneuvering contest against the Zero?

The Bearcat will dominate the maneuver in the vertical plane, the Zero will dominate in the horizontal plane at lower speeds if the US pilot is stupid enough to fight there. The Bearcat will win easily by keeping the speed up and maneuvering in the vertical plane. After all, the Hellcat beat the Zero by avoiding low speed turning fights, and the Bearcat was designed to be better than the Hellcat in most air combat parameters except range and bombload.

Hojutsuka

[DKTanker]

hojutsuka, on Sat 23 Jul 2005 0950, said:

After all, the Hellcat beat the Zero by avoiding low speed turning fights, and the Bearcat was designed to be better than the Hellcat in most air combat parameters except range and bombload.

Hojutsuka

And firepower. The F8F carried 4 .50s as opposed to the 6 .50s on the F6F.

[Scott Cunningham]

DKTanker, on Sat 23 Jul 2005 1616, said:

And firepower.  The F8F carried 4 .50s as opposed to the 6 .50s on the F6F.

I think the F-8 was closer to the Zero in more respects than the Hellcat, but it would have been a slaughter in any case.

We look at fighter combat as a sort of joust or gladatorial combat, one on one. It really wasnt like that. Dogfights were usually between groups of planes, and the US pilots were FAR better at group tactics than the japanese pilots were.

[BansheeOne]

DKTanker, on Sat 23 Jul 2005 1816, said:

And firepower.  The F8F carried 4 .50s as opposed to the 6 .50s on the F6F.

Of course those became 20 mm's starting with the F8F-1B.

[Xonitex]

You guys should definitely read this:

http://www.microsoft...icles_sakai.asp

It's an interview with Saburo Sakai by the development team of Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator 2. You can check out the "articles" section of that site, too, if you want to read a bunch more interviews (mostly with American pilots).

[9mmMakarov]

The F8 was also optimized for quick reaction to air raids, with superior rate of climb, etc. By the time any Zeros or other Kamikazes got to within striking distance, they'd be facing a LOT of Bearcats, in addition to the CAP, whilst earlier navy fighters would still be climbing to altitude.

A single engagement between a Zero and a Bearcat was unlikely late in the war, since so many Japanese sorties were kamakaze raids. Here the F8's high power to weight ratio would be telling, allowing it to make passes at incoming planes and reengage others quickly. It would fight almost entirely in the vertical plane, and escorting Zeros would be unable to engage or protect their raid, much less dogfight

[gewing]

I was wondering yesterday how the F7F did, would have done.

what a beauty!

[FormerBlue]

gewing, on Sun 24 Jul 2005 0056, said:

I was wondering yesterday how the F7F did, would have done. 

what a beauty!

More intended for night figher.

The Bearcat was described by Grumman as more or less a plane the size of the Wildcat with the engine of the Hellcat. Conversely, it was "the smallest airframe that could be designed around the specified engine and fuel specified in the request." Bearcats could climb like raped apes. Spoke to a pilot a few months ago and he mentioned the Bearcats could put the Panthers to shame off the deck most impressively. Time to height was the point.

[GregShaw]

FormerBlue, on Sat 23 Jul 2005 2015, said:

More intended for night figher.

The Bearcat was described by Grumman as more or less a plane the size of the Wildcat with the engine of the Hellcat.  Conversely, it was "the smallest airframe that could be designed around the specified engine and fuel specified in the request."  Bearcats could climb like raped apes.  Spoke to a pilot a few months ago and he mentioned the Bearcats could put the Panthers to shame off the deck most impressively.  Time to height was the point.

Cleveland Air Races 1947 - An USNR F8F-2 IIRC went from a standing start to 10,000 ft in 91 seconds. About 6500 fpm average, which is downright scary. Reputedly the F7F was also in the 6000+ fpm range at WEP. I don't know if there were ANY other piston engined fighters that could manage near that level of performance.

Greg Shaw

[John_Ford]

FormerBlue, on Sun 24 Jul 2005 0315, said:

More intended for night figher.

The Bearcat was described by Grumman as more or less a plane the size of the Wildcat with the engine of the Hellcat.  Conversely, it was "the smallest airframe that could be designed around the specified engine and fuel specified in the request."  Bearcats could climb like raped apes.  Spoke to a pilot a few months ago and he mentioned the Bearcats could put the Panthers to shame off the deck most impressively.  Time to height was the point.

Recall it was described as a Razor blade with an engine. Intent was as a Point defense fighter but she did a lot well re: AAF post war and indochina

[John_Ford]

gewing, on Sun 24 Jul 2005 0056, said:

I was wondering yesterday how the F7F did, would have done. 

what a beauty!

Multi Mission Fighter. Was designed with an internal weapons bay and could carry a 18" (?) Trop. Energy Fighter, Boom and Zoom. 4 .50's in the nose and 4 20MM in the wing root, They had to put blast hoods on the wing guns as they blinded the night fighter pilots when fired. JF

[DougRichards]

Slater, on Sat 23 Jul 2005 1359, said:

Although the two never met in combat, how would the F8F have fared in a maneuvering contest against the Zero?

Okay, Mitsubishi A6M Reisen, first flew April 1939. Bearcat, first flew August 1944. Five years of development difference, sort of like comparing the P-80 (1944 with the F-86 (1947).

Now, compare, in battle, with well trained pilots, the Hawker Sea Fury (Sept 1944) cat. One source states that the Bearcat had a edge in climb and manoeuvrability whilst the Sea Fury was a better wapons platform and the superior aircraft under instrument flight conditions.

It could even be said that the Fairy Firefly (Dec 1941) was a much better fighter, even as a two seater, than the Zero.

[Mk 1]

DougRichards, on Mon 25 Jul 2005 1330, said:

It could even be said that the Fairy Firefly (Dec  1941) was a much better fighter, even as a two seater, than the Zero.

:huh: :blink: <_<

Care to develop that line of analysis a bit further? Seems like a curious statement to just leave hanging out there ... :unsure:

-Mark 1

[GregShaw]

DougRichards, on Mon 25 Jul 2005 0630, said:

It could even be said that the Fairy Firefly (Dec  1941) was a much better fighter, even as a two seater, than the Zero.

As long as you didn't actually have to fight anything. :)

Greg Shaw

[DesertFox]

Are there any surviving bearcats and especially, are there any remaining Flying bearcats?

[gewing]

John_Ford, on Mon 25 Jul 2005 1306, said:

Multi Mission Fighter.  Was designed with an internal weapons bay and could carry a 18" (?) Trop.  Energy Fighter, Boom and Zoom.  4 .50's in the nose and 4 20MM in the wing root,  They had to put blast hoods on the wing guns as they blinded the night fighter pilots when fired.  JF

Kind of why I fell in love with the thing.

It was kind of like a modern fighter bomber, only before its time.

Do you know the ammunition loadout for the 8 guns? Were the two kinds on the same trigger?

Were they M2, or M3 .50s?

I'm not sure it wouldn't be a HELL of an impressive foundation for an UCAV. :)

[DougRichards]

GregShaw, on Tue 26 Jul 2005 0129, said:

As long as you didn't actually have to fight anything. :)

Greg Shaw

From William Green and Gordon Swanborough's An Illustrated Anatomy of the World's Fighters:

"It could turn with the best of its single seat contemporaries and inside most of them".

[Yama]

GregShaw, on Sun 24 Jul 2005 0507, said:

Cleveland Air Races 1947 - An USNR F8F-2 IIRC went from a standing start to 10,000 ft in 91 seconds. About 6500 fpm average, which is downright scary. Reputedly the F7F was also in the 6000+ fpm range at WEP. I don't know if there were ANY other piston engined fighters that could manage near that level of performance.

Bf-109K-4 could - with MW50 water injection - climb to 6000 metres in mere 3.5 minutes. Without the boost system it took 5 to 6 minutes, depending from engine model etc. Some of the late Spits were also quite hot climbers.

Late piston-engined fighters could outclimb early jets to a degree, especially if we're talking about alert start. Thing about early jet engines was that they accelerated terribly slowly.

F8F would have completely butchered any Zero model...

This post has been edited by Yama: 26 July 2005 - 0633 AM

[Ol Paint]

DesertFox, on Mon 25 Jul 2005 2312, said:

Are there any surviving bearcats and especially, are there any remaining Flying bearcats?

There are a few around, including Rare Bear, which set a piston engine speed record at 500+mph not too long ago. See here: http://www.warbirdsr...8fregistry.html

Douglas