F8F Bearcat vs Zero, ME109, FW 190 How would it have done?

[The Inspector]

There was a nice article in AVIATION HISTORY (I believe) about 18 months ago that covered the BEARCAT, the contemporary photos in the article used John Sessions' aircraft. The author talked to a guy who flew them in the early 50's and he was quoted as saying the airplane was like being chained to a cannon ball and that during transition training the pilots were told the aircraft was designed to carry enough fuel to get 4 20mm cannons to 20,000 feet ASAP to counter Kamakazi attackers.

[agent86]

Don't you just love this! I got octane differences, I got trained pilot differences, I got situatioanal differences. The bearcat (to me) is the ultimate combustion engine fighter plane of that era. The Mustang and Spitfire evolved to the point of maximum performance and capability as a fighter. They had no competition in terms of their records scores. The Bear never got that opportunity. Then I think of "Rare Bear" and the "Reno Races". Come on guys! Give me YOUR oppinion! Deployed earliar this one would have been a A$$ kicker!

ok,wanna see big bore engines burning lotsa hi octane american gas? see Rare Bear doing almost 500 miles an hour at about 100 feet? come and see the Reno air races.Best show on the planet.I might even be able to get you a free lap dance at the"Gentleman's club" in Reno(good to have good connections) and you will hear the difference between the sound of a large round engine at full power and an inline overstressed to the limits

[Saville]

Your FINAL answer will ALWAYS depend on EXACTLY who is flying each aircraft.

Dudley Henriques

While true, I suspect that the universally unspoken assumption in questions like these is:

"Assuming both pilots of exactly equal skill and both having an equally good/bad day."

The issue in questions like this is, I suspect, is an aircraft performance one and not a pilot skill one.

[Saville]

Think you missed one. But the following link (for warbird, not service examples) seems to be what your after.

http://fighter-collection.com/duel.pdf

This part was interesting:

1) Lack of ailerons at high speed. Book limitations are "No full deflection at high speed or in high G turns." The Sea Fury ailerons are permitted full deflection at all speeds. They are also very powerful and precise.

Reason I find this interesting is that once a Zero was captured and flown against the Wildcat, it was found that the Zeke's ailerons got too stiff to move at high speed and that was a definite plus for the Wildcat: and a way out if needed.

So I would have thought Grumman would take care to not build that limitation into a fighter. On the other hand, one has to make design concessions, and maybe this was one of them.

[sgt hawk]

JDK-Thanks James That article makes one want to be a Ray Hanna fan for sure and a hawker Sea Fury fan for certain!

[Dudley Henriques]

Your FINAL answer will ALWAYS depend on EXACTLY who is flying each aircraft.

Dudley Henriques

While true, I suspect that the universally unspoken assumption in questions like these is:

"Assuming both pilots of exactly equal skill and both having an equally good/bad day."

The issue in questions like this is, I suspect, is an aircraft performance one and not a pilot skill one.

In A2A, you will seldom if ever find two pilots with exactly equal stick, rudder, and ACM skill sets that can be reduced to a zero point for comparison purposes. We can however set up a dissimilar aircraft comparison platform for any two fighters using a specific energy format so the constant involving the difference between the cockpits will always remain as the ever present variable in the equation. It is this variable that forms the basis for the perpetual argument relating to the "which fighter was or is best" question.

The only viable method to accomplish individual comparison is an energy format at 50% fuel resulting in specific energy curves on each aircraft for overlay. With this in hand, the areas of advantage and disadvantage for each aircraft can be obtained. It is notable however that any comparison overlay leaves out one factor that when considering any fighter v fighter makes a HUGE difference regardless of where in each fighter's 3 dimensional maneuvering performance envelope any engagement takes place. That factor is the difference between the two cockpits related to pilot skills.
Thus, the old argument on "which one is best" goes on ad infinitum.

[Saville]

Dudley writes:

"In A2A, you will seldom if ever find two pilots with exactly equal stick, rudder, and ACM skill sets that can be reduced to a zero point for comparison purposes. "

Again, while true, it's irrelevant to the question. We often zero out the un-zero-able to focus on the question posed. For instance, others have mentioned octane levels, and still others mentioned axis vs allies training and experience when the F8F arrived. All those are pertinent factors as well.

But if a person wishes to simply compare aircraft performance under ideal conditions then you zero out pilot skill, octane levels (unless one a/c was limited in that sense), training levels, weather considerations, day of the week, what the pilots ate for breakfast, and how much they drank the night before.

It's fair to have conversations including those factors but, again, my suspicion is that when we see general questions such as:

"How would the F8F have done against the FW190?"

those considerations are assumed to be nulled out and the issue at hand is performance under ideal conditions. One such ideal condition is exactly equal pilots.

[The Inspector]

Well, now that both an F8F and an FW-190 live across the runway from each other here @ KPAE, and a number of the pilots who fly the FHC aircraft are pretty good hands, I'll bet that question could be at least partially answered in the fairly near future.

[agent86]

Both the Bearcat and the Seafury woulda eaten the axis planes for lunch.maybe a snack as well

[Dudley Henriques]

Dudley writes:

"In A2A, you will seldom if ever find two pilots with exactly equal stick, rudder, and ACM skill sets that can be reduced to a zero point for comparison purposes. "

Again, while true, it's irrelevant to the question. We often zero out the un-zero-able to focus on the question posed. For instance, others have mentioned octane levels, and still others mentioned axis vs allies training and experience when the F8F arrived. All those are pertinent factors as well.

But if a person wishes to simply compare aircraft performance under ideal conditions then you zero out pilot skill, octane levels (unless one a/c was limited in that sense), training levels, weather considerations, day of the week, what the pilots ate for breakfast, and how much they drank the night before.

It's fair to have conversations including those factors but, again, my suspicion is that when we see general questions such as:

"How would the F8F have done against the FW190?"

those considerations are assumed to be nulled out and the issue at hand is performance under ideal conditions. One such ideal condition is exactly equal pilots.

I would respectfully disagree with your premise. Although comparison format is indeed set up sans pilot data, and indeed that is exactly how it's set up these days (courtesy Boyd, Christie, Rutowski, et al), the "question" as asked here and as almost always is asked whenever it's brought up, is simply how one fighter would fare against another or which fighter was or is best.
Presented in this context, one must assume that in presenting ANY answer, one must as well assume that these aircraft must be flown by a pilot. One could conceivably attempt to answer without the pilot in the equation but then you have simply addressed the question of how the two aircraft being compared compare using the classic formats in play today. In other words there is really only one way to compare two fighters, or any two aircraft for that matter, and that way is as we both agree, without the pilot in the equation.
But the devil in THAT detail as they say, is that the classic comparison format is seldom what the questioner is asking about. You can have two dissimilar aircraft and show where each has advantage and disadvantage on the Ps basis and STILL have the open question remaining concerning the pilot engaged in the area of his positive Ps by an adversary with a negative energy situation but with superior piloting skills negating the plots and acquiring a firing solution. Happens all the time in the real world.
So when the question comes up on which fighter is or was best, one always has to take the pilot question into account.
The energy plots are simply a guideline. What determines the winner EVERY time when it gets down to the real world, is who's flying what and how well what is being flown.

I've been involved with fighter pilots directly for over 50 years. Some of these pilots were and are the finest fighter pilots in the world. Naturally this question has come up in our circle and been discussed openly on many occasions. It usually results in much laughter and an entire night of "attitude adjustment". But the single factor that every fighter pilot I've ever known agrees on is when it comes right down to who gets to keep all the marbles and go home regardless of what he's flying, it's the guy who flies and fights like the other guy is the best fighter pilot in the world up to the instant he proves he's not, then he kills him!.

[Saville]

Dudley writes:

"In A2A, you will seldom if ever find two pilots with exactly equal stick, rudder, and ACM skill sets that can be reduced to a zero point for comparison purposes. "

Again, while true, it's irrelevant to the question. We often zero out the un-zero-able to focus on the question posed. For instance, others have mentioned octane levels, and still others mentioned axis vs allies training and experience when the F8F arrived. All those are pertinent factors as well.

But if a person wishes to simply compare aircraft performance under ideal conditions then you zero out pilot skill, octane levels (unless one a/c was limited in that sense), training levels, weather considerations, day of the week, what the pilots ate for breakfast, and how much they drank the night before.

It's fair to have conversations including those factors but, again, my suspicion is that when we see general questions such as:

"How would the F8F have done against the FW190?"

those considerations are assumed to be nulled out and the issue at hand is performance under ideal conditions. One such ideal condition is exactly equal pilots.

One could conceivably attempt to answer without the pilot in the equation but then you have simply addressed the question of how the two aircraft being compared compare using the classic formats in play today. In other words there is really only one way to compare two fighters, or any two aircraft for that matter, and that way is as we both agree, without the pilot in the equation.

Thank you - glad you agree

[Dan Newcomb]

For what its worth, our wing has a Bearcat, a Hellcat, a Zero, a Mustang, a Spitfire and a Yak. The original question being aircraft versus aircraft not pilot versus pilot. If you ask our pilots that fly all of them which of these they are most impressed with the majority state unequivocally, BEARCAT! I have actually had a couple of pilots say that after flying the Bearcat flying a Mustang is like driving a Chevy.

[Saville]

I'm certainly no expert, but from what I've gleaned here and there, the F8F was reportedly the first carrier based aircraft that could out-turn a Zero. I also had a friend tell me the F8F borrowed a lot of design cues from the FW 190.

For what it's worth, according to Samurai, by Sakai/Caidin, it was stated that the Hellcat could stay with a Zero in a turn at least in the "first few degrees" of the turn. I say "for what it's worth" because I read the book a long long time ago and I don't know if it was Sakai or Caidin that put that in.

[Saville]

The original question being aircraft versus aircraft not pilot versus pilot.

My point exactly. It doesn't matter what Boyd, Christie asked - what matters is the question asked here.

[Saville]

I wish I could recall the source but, years ago I read an anecdote about how a WWII P-51 instructor liked to sober up his cocky students. He would challenge them to a duel and the instructor would fly a Piper Cub. The 51 jock had to get gun camera footage. Well the turning ability of the Cub allowed him to stay out of the camera and in fact make it hard for the students to even keep sight. So difficult, in fact, that he was able to land, push the Cub under a tree and sit in the shade while watching the hapless student search the skies for him. Sounds apochryphal, which is why I wish I could remember the source.