Talk:Grumman F8F Bearcat/Archive 1

Untitled
0.5 inches isn't 127mm... I suspect that one of those decimal points is in the wrong place, but since I don't know which one I can't change it. 62.252.32.13 22:34, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I see someone has changed this, but is the change right? (i.e. do you (the changer) actually know or are you just more confident than me in guessing?) 0.5 inches seems awfully thin as the diameter of a rocket, particularly for only carrying 4 of the things. 62.252.32.13 00:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's 127mm (5"). I fixed it. Trekphiler 13:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed trivia
User:Karl Dickman just removed the following, along with the Trivia section heading, citing WP:MOS: It's not clear to me which particular style guideline this violates. (In fact, since the MOS is a rather lengthy policy, the comment seems a bit cryptic.) This strikes me as a pertinent observation about the Bearcat, by a famous pilot. What is wrong with it? Trevor Hanson 06:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * When asked his favorite aircraft to fly, Neil Armstrong's immediate and unequivocal answer was, "Bearcat."
 * After reading the guideline, I don't get it either but it seems to be the MOA of this particular editor. I put the quote back in an appropriate place. Bzuk 13:31 13 December 2007 (UTC).

Powerplant
The cited powerplant is only used in the F8F-1 variant, the F8F-2 used the P&W R-2800-30W (lower number, but a later development). The arnament of the -2 version is also different: 4x 20mm cannon.


 * If you are talking about the Specs section, the header specifies that it's for the F8F-1 variant. The normal practice is to pick one variant, usually the most significant (but often just the one that was published in the source used), and only list the specs for that variant. If your are talking about in the text itself, then those can be added with proper sourcing. - BillCJ 23:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Construction/Material?
I'm fairly certain that the Bearcat was an all-metal (aluminium?) construction. Can someone confirm this and put it (sourced, of course) into the article? If I'm right, how does the material stand up to 50 years of use in the currently airworthy exemplars? Are structural parts replaced regularly, or are they so over-engineered that fatigue is not a problem? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong squadron
I do not believe VA-20A ever flew the F8F-1. It is not listed in aircraft flown by VFA-195 (the squadron that VA-20A eventually became) in DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN NAVAL AVIATION SQUADRONS—Volume I. E2a2j (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Dubious statements
Some information is either unreferenced, and dubious; "It was also considerably smaller in size, as it was designed to be operated from small escort aircraft carriers, something the big Hellcat rarely did. Thus the F8F Bearcat was intended mainly as a replacement for the obsolete FM2 Wildcat..."

or referenced and still dubious; "and defending the fleet against incoming airborne suicide (kamikaze) attacks."

The Bearcat was intended to replace both the F6F and the FM2...

Design of the Bearcat was started in late 1943 and the prototype F8F-1 flew in August 1944 - two months before the Kamikaze attacks started! The Bearcat was hardly designed with a "primary mission" of defending against kamikaze attack - that mission statement came later.

Then we have "This was replaced with an explosives system to blow the wings off together, which also worked well" Blow the WINGS off?? I knew that the wingtips were designed to be blown off, but blowing off the entire wing is a dubious safety measure!

"In comparison with the Vought F4U Corsair, the initial Bearcat (F8F-1) was marginally slower but was more maneuverable and climbed more quickly." What version of the Corsair are we talking about? Not trying to denegrate anyone, but the material about the "breakaway" wings seems to have been written in a big hurry. Overall, this article needs some more work.Minorhistorian (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

F8F was not designed as an FM-2 replacement exclusively. Roy Grumman noted that it should be represented as such simply to keep the USN BuAer from overloading the design. Reference is Dr. Rene Francillon's "Grumman Aircraft Since 1929".ANA607 (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Flying characteristics
My father had a number of opportunities to fly the Bearcat during the early years of his naval career. Though he was never assigned to a Bearcat squadron, he was in a ferry squadron after the war and flew many different planes from one station to another. I recently found his four logbooks and have enjoyed reading through them - in one two day period in the late 40s he flew an F4F, F6F, F4U, and an F8F. (He also ferried the F7F and later checked out in the F9F) His combat experience was as an FM2 pilot flying off an escort carrier at Okinawa, but his all-time favorite was the Bearcat. He told me he flew the one that was at the field at NAS Coronado every time he had the chance. Later, at Litchfield Park he put in many hours in Bearcats and even formed an unofficial team of 4 of them called the "Blue Biddies" to fly demonstrations in the Phoenix area. He said that when the Bearcat was trimmed out right, the pilot could lean forward and the plane would start to gradually lose altitude. He also said "You didn't so much get in the plane as you 'strapped it on'". There have been many discussions and arguments about which was the best WW2 fighter and it is somewhat of a shame that the Bearcat never saw action in that conflict, because it would be difficult to rate another propellor driven fighter over the F8F. I recall reading that shortly after the war the pilots of an F8F squadron near New Orleans were able to do mock dogfights with a squadron of P51 Mustangs, and that the Bearcats were never bested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerEye76 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

wing loading and maneuverability
From from http://www.vectorsite.net/avf6f.html we have these figures:

GRUMMAN F8F-1 BEARCAT: _____________________  _________________   _______________________   spec                    metric              english _____________________  _________________   _______________________

wingspan               10.82 meters        35 feet 6 inches wing area              22.67 sq_meters     144 sq_feet length                 8.43 meters         27 feet 8 inches height                 4.16 meters         13 feet 8 inches

empty weight           3,320 kilograms     7,320 pounds max loaded weight      5,780 kilograms     12,740 pounds

max speed at altitude  680 KPH             425 MPH / 370 KT   service ceiling         11.855 meters       38,900 feet range, no drop tanks   1,780 kilometers    1,105 MI / 960 NMI

Using the main article's stated 9600 pound/4354 kg loaded weight, from this we derive a wing loading of 66.7 pounds per square foot, or 192.1 kg/square meter. This is extremely high even by the standards of late-WWII high-performance fighter aircraft, the sort of figure that conjures up images of Grumman executives pitching it to the Navy euphemistically as "a stable gun platform." It must have been a real handful to land on a pitching carrier deck. Its stall speed must have been rather high.


 * On the other hand, is that figure of only 144 square feet of wing area accurate? The F8F was a tiny aircraft, comparable in size to the F4F.  The F4F had 260 square feet of wing area.  Was the F8F that much smaller, or is the figure incorrect?  Note that 22.67 square meters is 244 square feet, not 144 square feet.  One of these figures must be wrong.  244 square feet, incidentally, would give a wing loading of 39.3 pounds per square feet, lower than the F4U and comparable to the P51.

Same site describes it as less maneuverable than the F4U. Given the Corsair's 45 pounds/sq. foot wing loading, this is plausible, though we all know there is more to maneuverability than wing loading and sustained flat turns. The power-weight ratio implies, and the article gives specific instances, suggesting that it climbed like a scalded monkey. I wonder what kind of roll rate it had.

I wonder if it's been used in a flight sim.
 * Wing area is in fact 244 sq ft - according to Swanborough and Bowers' United States Navy Aircraft since 1911 and Green's War Planes of the Second World War.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Armament
Why is the armament listed twice at the bottom of the page? I would delete it myself, but suspect one table lists one variant and the second another. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 09:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The first set of specs are for the F85-1 and the second for the F8F-2 - whether the article needs two sets of specs however...Nigel Ish (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Surviving aircraft
The article lists 3 survivors in Vietnam, but the ref provided, Warbird Resource states that they were respectively "Displayed at Tan Son Nhut AB, Vietnam, 1967-1987", Displayed at "Nha Trang AB, Vietnam, 1967-1987" and "Displayed as "484" at Tan Son Nhut AB, Vietnam, 1971". There is nothing to prove that those aircraft still exist, so unless an up-to-date source is given they should be deleted. Mztourist (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A disclaimer can be put on them to indicate that they may no longer be in existence, the source clearly indicates the date of display. BTW, it's Building 5: Helicopters, not Building 5 Helicopters. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC).
 * I live in Saigon and wrote the VPAF Museum pages, if they were anywhere they would be there, so they have presumably been sold, stolen or scrapped.Mztourist (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, if stolen, with luck they'll pop out from some warehouse and show up on the market eventually. The VPAF is still sitting on twenty or more ex-RVNAF Skyraiders they want too much money for and still advertise now and then.WiseguyThreeOne (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Vietnam
how long did the Vietnam air force use this plane was it used in the Vietnam war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.7.27 (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Howard Pardue crash
RIP Howard Pardue, first off. But has anyone seen a tail number yet for the one he dumped in Texas this morning so we know which one to take off the list? I mean RIP to Howard and all, but this wasn't the first USN warbird he'd dumped. WiseguyThreeOne (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, anyone have any word on the condition or rebuildability of 90446? I've seen Mustangs get rebuilt out of a data plate and some scraps, so didn't know if anyone was trying to rebuild this one.WiseguyThreeOne (talk) 02:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Fw 190 and F8F
Can we see a source for an Fw190 being at the Grumman plant?ANA607 01:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been reading Corky Meyer's Fight Journal, written by a test pilot who started with Grumman in 1942. He mentions being able to fly the Fw 190 (at Pax River, I believe), but I haven't found a mention of the 190 visiting Grumman. He does state that the F8F was based heavily on the Fw 190 in having the largest available engine in the smallest possible airframe. I'll put a citation needed tag on the statement, and we'll see if someone can provide a refernce within the next couple weeks. If nothing shows up, we can remove it then, and I'll try to cite something from the book in a more consise way. - BillCJ 02:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've always been uncomfortable with that particular claim – particularly the "many features inspired by" bit. It didn't seem to match all the other descriptions I've read of early design goals for the aircraft. This makes it sound like a "let's catch up" design, but it the attitude has more usually been characterized as "let's surpass everything ever built" – and that's basically what happened. I hope that somebody can either substantiate the Fw claim, or clarify it. As the article points out, Corky Meyers was the project pilot, so however he describes the development process should have significant weight. (He was very fond of this aircraft, and remained in contact with Bearcat flyers long after the plane was retired from service.) Trevor Hanson 03:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weighing in a little late but here goes. Oberleutnant Arnim Faber’s Fw 190A-3 had fortuitously arrived in England on 23 June 1942, causing quite a sensation among British aircraft engineers and designers. Test results from RAE Farnborough and AFDU Duxford filtered back to aircraft manufacturers in the United States as well. In early 1943, a team from Grumman were invited to test captured Axis aircraft. Along with President Leroy Grumman, Bud Gillies, vice president flight operations was Robert Hall, the then Grumman chief engineering test pilot. Hall was particularly impressed by the performance of the Fw 190A. (Meyer, "Corky". "Clipping the Bearcat's Wing." Flight Journal, Vol. 3, no. 4, August 1998, p. 42.) On the team's return, his enthusiastic report convinced Grumman that optimum performance in speed and maneuverability could be extracted from a compact, lightweight fighter, literally a "hot rod" as the company designers called it. On 8 July 1943, Leroy Grumman sent a memo to Chief Designer Bill Schwendler outlining the exact specifications for Design 58, a small, compact, lightweight fighter built around the proven Pratt & Whitney R-2800. Although there was little in the lines of the new design that would evoke the Fw 190, nonetheless, its overall design philosophy was clearly influenced by its German counterpart. (Scrivner, Charles L. F8F Bearcat in action. Carrollton, Texas: Squadron/Signal Publications, 1990, p. 4. ISBN 0-89747-243-8.) FWIW Bzuk 04:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC).
 * Very helpful, thanks for digging these up. Those quotes strike me as having quite a different sense from what is currently in the article ("Many features of the Bearcat's design were inspired by...."). Perhaps it was the phrase "many features" that bothered me, suggesting a sort of cloning project. As I read your quotes, the design philosophy was influenced by experience with the 190A (and presumably also with other highly maneuverable airframes), but this did not lead to a feature-copying exercise. Since you've done such a nice job of dredging up these sources, perhaps you'd like to summarize and cite them in an update to the article. Trevor Hanson 05:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There's really only one distinguishing feature of the Fw, the super-close cowl and duct fan. This was copied into a number of other designs, but was by no means universal. Did the Bear use the same system? If so, "inspired by" is the right term. Maury 11:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen a fan in the cowling like the Fw 190 has. I believe the cowling of the F8F and the Fw (as well as the F6F and many others) are of NACA design, with the fan being unique to the 190. In Graham White's R-2800 book (ISBN# 978-0768002720) there is a discussion of cylinder fin design and cooling baffle changes on the Pratt & Whitney "C" series R-2800 Double Wasps which enabled the higher boost pressures and horsepower of the F8F and P-47M. ANA607 04:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe "influenced" is probably the most cogent description since none of the design features of the Fw 190 made it into the Berarcat although as others have pointed out, the overall design philosophy of creating a compact, (relatively) lightweight fighter around the biggest engine available did make its way into the F8F. FWIW Bzuk 12:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC).


 * Note this passage from the article: There is considerable debate among sources as to whether or not the Focke Wulf Fw 190 influenced the design of the G-38. It is known that test pilots from Grumman examined and flew a captured Fw 190 in England in early 1943, and the G-38 has a number of design notes in common with the Fw 190 that the Hellcat did not, especially in the cowling and landing gear arrangements. However, no definitive evidence has been presented that these tests had a direct input to the G-58 design. Initial design of the Fw 190 began in 1938, the F8F in 1943, only five years apart; in retrospect the F6F design goes back to 1941, The Bearcat followed so closely on the Hellcat, that both actually saw service in World War II. That's why, technically, the FW 190 and F8F are in the same era. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also worth noting Kurt Tank's comments on the FW design - contrary to the "smallest aircraft biggest engine", he deliberately set out to add room for armor and guns. He argued that the Me and Spit, which he stated followed that rule, ended up with too many compromises. So I think the statement immediately prior sums it up. This is definitely not the P.1011! Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The article states, "The first production aircraft was delivered in February 1945 and the first squadron, Fighter Squadron 19 (VF-19), was operational by 21 May 1945, but World War II was over before the aircraft saw combat service." V-E day was in May 1045, so to saw they "both actually saw service in World War II" is stretching the point a bit too far. I'd still leave then out of each other's lists. - BilCat (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Concept - comparison to Wildcat and Hellcat
"Another goal was that the G-58 (Grumman's design designation for the aircraft) should be able to operate from escort carriers, which were then limited to the obsolescent F4F Wildcat as the Grumman F6F Hellcat was too large and heavy." I go to those aircraft pages and compare then. Length & wingspan - Bearcat is smaller than Wildcat by a factor. Hellcat is significantly bigger than Wildcat 10-20%. Bearcat is somewhat taller than both of the others. Bearcat is 15% lighter than Hellcat both empty and Max Takeoff. But still significantly heavier that Wildcat. DAMN - they really met that objective. Shame we don't have a reference on the objective. Wfoj3 (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Prop size
The Hellcat used a 13 ft 1 in three-bladed Hamilton Standard propeller. A slight reduction in size was made by moving to a 12 ft 7 in Aeroproducts four-bladed propeller. Keeping the prop clear of the deck required long landing gear, which, combined with the shortened fuselage, gave the Bearcat a significant "nose-up" profile on land.

The f6F was given a 4 bladed prop, or the F8F? The way this is phrased is ambiguous. From the wording it sounds like it is talking about the F6F, but the closing phrase then discloses that the F8F is referred to. The F6F also had a long gear to clear the prop from the deck.. In fact it was designed to extend several inches as it cycled down. Even so it still had difficulties with prop strikes and wit forward visibility with the tail down. I always wondered why it was never converted to a smaller 4 blade prop instead. This sounds like it's saying the F6F used a 13ft 3 bladed prop, later reduced to a 12'7" prop. It then seems to to saying the F6F required a long gear to keep the prp clear, also true, but then it confuses the reader by saying its the F8F we're discussing all of a sudden. The F6F used the 13'1" 3 bladed prop, and it caused issues with deck strikes. The F8F being even shorter, they decided it was important to switch to a smaller 4 bladed prop instead. Even with the shorter prop, the plane still required a very tall gear and had a very nose up attitude at rest due to the very short fuselage.

70.20.40.215 (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Surviving Aircraft

 * G-58 Gulfhawk (two civilian built Bearcats)


 * G-58A – privately owned in Chino, California.
 * G-58B – based at Palm Springs Air Museum in Palm Springs, California.

There is actually only one surviving G-58, the other one burnt down after a landing accident in 1949 (at Chino). G-58B in Palm Springs is the one. The mentioned G-58A in Chino is a F8F-2 which had been given the ID / registration of the G-58 after restoration ... Source: http://www.warbirdregistry.org/f8fregistry/f8f-121707.html?fbclid=IwAR0iScAspopr-tL0NGwvPC05cFZ5oED0u-j1478r5nE9hDjJs2bgt4lqKHg 84.115.24.226 (talk) 05:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)