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

[agent86]

I'm only quoting what I have read. One thing I do know,The Bearcat was a very capable and fast airplane.still is. kinda like the 1930's BeeGee racers.All engine ,little aluminium surrounding it.and that engine is a firebreathing monster. R-2800, isnt it? used in more than a few great planes,but cant remember any smaller airframes

[famvburg]

Back in the late '70s, Wings (or was it Airpower?) magazine ran several issues of articles by WWII Mustang ace Kit Carson. I remember one comment he made was that the USAAF would have had to have an a/c like the Bearcat to even things up with the Fw 190.

[The Inspector]

That's GEE BEE, the Bee Gee's were disco era favorites who's underwear was two sizes too small which accounts for their singing styles

[Saville]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the F6F, F8F, P-47, and F4U all used the same engine: R2800?

If so, what accounts for the discrepancy in performance between the F6F and the other three? IIRC the F6F top speed was lower by quite a bit. Is this due to a selection of superchargers?

thanks

[agent86]

oops,dyslexia and alzheimers both rear their ugly head in another one of my posts. old age is no fun.Maybe had a disco flashback from the 1970's

[agent86]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the F6F, F8F, P-47, and F4U all used the same engine: R2800?

If so, what accounts for the discrepancy in performance between the F6F and the other three? IIRC the F6F top speed was lower by quite a bit. Is this due to a selection of superchargers?

thanks

The hellcat is a great plane and was one of our best.However,it doesnt look like itsa real lightweight nor the best aerodynamics. It was built like a brick and was perfect for its job.Maybe the Mack truck effect was at work here.and maybe I am full of it.just a guess

[sgt hawk]

The F8F was about 20% lighter than the hellcat and yes they all used the Pw2800. The F8F with the water injection. The bearcat could out climb the Corsair but lost in maneauverability.

[old iron]

But weren't the BeeGees the P-51s of Rock-and-Roll music?

[The Inspector]

Only if you're gonna do a full Cleveland-

[whistlingdeath77]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the F6F, F8F, P-47, and F4U all used the same engine: R2800?

If so, what accounts for the discrepancy in performance between the F6F and the other three? IIRC the F6F top speed was lower by quite a bit. Is this due to a selection of superchargers?

thanks

yes they did use the pratt and whitney r-2800. The p-47 and hellcat are actually bigger than the corsair. I know that the p-47 was heavier as well,( i think the hellcat too but i'm not sure.) The corsair i believe had a 2 stage engine. The high speed i'm going to say is from that hugh corsair prop which would cut more air than the others, thus making her faster. Inverted gull wing could have helped with airflow along the wing roots. I'm just guessing on this and i'm sure there are many guys out there that could tell you more.

[Kyleb]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the F6F, F8F, P-47, and F4U all used the same engine: R2800?

If so, what accounts for the discrepancy in performance between the F6F and the other three? IIRC the F6F top speed was lower by quite a bit. Is this due to a selection of superchargers?

thanks

They all did use the R-2800, although different variants. I suspect the major difference in performance came from design philosophy.

The P-47 was very fast, particularly at altitude and in a dive. On the other hand, it didn't climb particularly well, nor was it competitive in a turning fight, and its takeoff roll was long compared to the carrier fighters. All of those deficiencies were caused in part by the aircraft's heavy weight. Being a landbased fighter, it had a vastly different set of design requirements than the Navy fighters. In particular its stall speed would have made it a disaster in carrier operations, even if it had a tailhook an the accompanying structure for carrier operations.

The Corsair was designed to go fast. Sacrifices were made in outward visibility and low speed handling to achieve higher performance. Without the pressing need from the war, the Navy may have never put it on a carrier. Compared to Grumman's products, it was alleged to be substantially more difficult to fly "around the boat".

On the other hand, Grumman's philosophy when designing the F6F seemed to be to build a good performing (though not stellar) aircraft which was easy to fly and a good gun platform. Big airframe, lots of wing, with the pilot sitting way up high for good visibility. That philosophy probably really benefitted a lot of 22 year old, 300 hour pilots.

The F8F, on the other hand, was a <relatively> lightweight fighter designed as an interceptor. It compromised range and load carrying ability for speed, maneuverability, and climb performance. Also, it had the benefit of being a 2-3 year newer design compared to the others. As rapidly as aeronautical engineering was progressing back then, that made a difference.

[marine air]

Okay,
1) not the Zero. It only has 1200 hp. lightly armed and no self sealing fuel tanks. As they added weight it lost a lot of its advantages it had at start of WWII .
2) not the Bearcat. I talked with a docent at the George H.W. Bush library that had a Navy Cross and other combat awards and he had flown the COrsair, Bearcat, F7F, and Skyraider in Marine Corps. He said the Bearcat was a disappointment as a combat aircraft. WIngs were too short. All loaded up with ordnance and fuel and armor plating the Bearcat became truculent and limited. He said the Corsair was far better for combat operations. The Bearcats we see today are a few thousand pounds lighter than a true military example.
3) Not the Hellcat. Same wing airfoil as the FW-190 but a few thousand lbs. heavier. To me, basically an evolved variation of the Wildcat, F3f, and Avenger. A lot of same geometry in previous Grumman designs. Too heavy, draggy, slow.
4) not the 109. Stiff roll rate at high speeds, no rudder trim which would make it a hassle to fly. Rudder too small, etc. Later super fast models had a higher wing loading than the P-47, or B-26 Marauder!
5) Focke Wulf 190. Best mix of speed, design development, horsepower, armament, etc. wing design etc. (Did the FW-190 inspire some of the design features of the Hellcat and later Bearcat?)

[whistlingdeath77]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the F6F, F8F, P-47, and F4U all used the same engine: R2800?

If so, what accounts for the discrepancy in performance between the F6F and the other three? IIRC the F6F top speed was lower by quite a bit. Is this due to a selection of superchargers?

thanks

They all did use the R-2800, although different variants. I suspect the major difference in performance came from design philosophy.

The P-47 was very fast, particularly at altitude and in a dive. On the other hand, it didn't climb particularly well, nor was it competitive in a turning fight, and its takeoff roll was long compared to the carrier fighters. All of those deficiencies were caused in part by the aircraft's heavy weight. Being a landbased fighter, it had a vastly different set of design requirements than the Navy fighters. In particular its stall speed would have made it a disaster in carrier operations, even if it had a tailhook an the accompanying structure for carrier operations.

The Corsair was designed to go fast. Sacrifices were made in outward visibility and low speed handling to achieve higher performance. Without the pressing need from the war, the Navy may have never put it on a carrier. Compared to Grumman's products, it was alleged to be substantially more difficult to fly "around the boat".

On the other hand, Grumman's philosophy when designing the F6F seemed to be to build a good performing (though not stellar) aircraft which was easy to fly and a good gun platform. Big airframe, lots of wing, with the pilot sitting way up high for good visibility. That philosophy probably really benefitted a lot of 22 year old, 300 hour pilots.

The F8F, on the other hand, was a <relatively> lightweight fighter designed as an interceptor. It compromised range and load carrying ability for speed, maneuverability, and climb performance. Also, it had the benefit of being a 2-3 year newer design compared to the others. As rapidly as aeronautical engineering was progressing back then, that made a difference.

actually, the corsair and chance-vought started the design in 1939 and was contracted by the Navy to always be used as a carrier fighter. Hense, the folding wing option for saving space. We all know the tough times it had in the beginning. There really wasin't any sacrifice in it's design. She kept her armor,self sealing tank, dive brakes etc. They even altered the design moving the cockpit forward a little. And a very beefy landing gear system. You are very correct about the corsair being harder to fly than the hellcat and wildcat. But the corsair had that bad stall at low speeds too when the wing would dip.

[Wilson]

The Bearcat was designed to counter George and Jack, not the Kamikize. U.S. Intelligence anticipated large scale production of both aircraft, but it never materialized.

[JDK]

The Corsair was rejected for carrier operations by the US. The British were so desperate for an effective carrier fighter, they made it work as a carrier aircraft, and thus the USN decided to follow suit - after all they had to, as the Brits were, and the land-based Marines were showing what an effective fighter it was, even if it was almost as awful decklanding as the Seafire.

That's all in your Corsair 101, btw.