Warbird Information Exchange

While some are guessing and comparing profiles to sonar images... if you read the article it said this.....

On later dives with the Navy, he said, researchers noted that the shape of the air intakes in the wings, their spacing from the machine guns and the location of a gun camera lens were “a perfect match for a Bearcat.”


The article also states that the bubble canopy was slip open, which may give the appearance of a longer canopy on the sonar than if it was closed.

Looks like I failed to pay attention to the words I had posted from that news story, identifying the aircraft as a Bearcat. That's strong evidence, from dives, in the plural, but although the sonar image leaves much to the imagination, the Bearcat profile placed side-by-side with that image makes me at least a bit skeptical about a positive Bearcat ID. Even with a canopy slid back in an open position. Glad to be proven wrong, however.

Next spring I hope we will see photos of the wreckage, and hear positive news about the recovery of human remains - presumably David Mandt's.

My various comparison shots were done out of curiosity. Making them was more enjoyable than mowing the lawn and a few other necessities (which couldn't be avoided too much longer).

_________________
RAF LIBERATORS OVER BURMA (subtitled FLYING WITH 159 SQUADRON) by Bill Kirkness DFM and Matt Poole, published by Fonthill Media

https://www.amazon.co.uk/RAF-Liberators-Over-Burma-Squadron/dp/1781556563/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1525180922&sr=8-1&keywords=matt+poole

https://www.amazon.com/RAF-Liberators-over-Burma-Squadron/dp/1781556563/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1546836560&sr=8-1&keywords=bill+kirkness+matt+poole

Your profiles are well done, Matt. Thanks for posting them.

The obvious, to me anyway, question is why is the canopy open? Would that not indicate that the pilot was at least prepared for a water landing?

_________________
Cheers!

Lance Jones

The fact that the airplane is intact tells me that the airplane was under control and at relatively low speed when it ditched. Given that, i'd expect the pilot was aboard and the canopy was open...

The true prototype Bearcat,

So here is a neat fact on the aircraft concerned. The plane was the first XF8F-1 Bu 90460 and was the very first Bearcat to fly on August 31, 1944 The factory serial was D-01 and the next XF8F-1 was D-02 Bu 90461. Interestingly the next 23 Bearcacts were factory serialed D-1 through D-23 and are earlier Bureau numbers! They flew later, the first one 90437 flying Jan 6,1945 with 90448 first flying December 2, 1944. This was the first F8F to crash.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/F8F/F8F-1-2.pdf


The look of the wreck and the information seems to suggest some sort of power failure or engine damage that required a simple ditching offshore. There is no canopy jettison instructions like the Mustang water landing, so I believe that the canopy was locked open prior to water contact. Finding the gloves in the water was a chilling clue, as swimming post ditching would be easier without gloves. I would expect the aircraft sank and the pilot treaded water or attempted to swim to shore in frigid water. The aircraft’s discovery reminds us the dangers of even routine flight testing.

The plane photoed in Sept 1944....

Hopefully we will get a chance to see actual pictures soon. Also, remember the P-47D that ditched in the Hudson River a few years ago? The pilot didn’t make it out of that airplane for some reason. This Navy pilot would’ve been well versed on the proper procedure, it just didn’t go as planned.

Hopefully we will get a chance to see actual pictures soon. Also, remember the P-47D that ditched in the Hudson River a few years ago? The pilot didn’t make it out of that airplane for some reason. This Navy pilot would’ve been well versed on the proper procedure, it just didn’t go as planned.