Bearcat replaced the Wildcat ??

got this blurb from the badcataviation email update......... The F8F Bearcat was designed to be operated from small escort aircraft carriers and was intended mainly as a replacement for the obsolete FM2 Wildcat. $32.99

I thought the Hellcat replaced the Wildcat and the Bearcat came in after the war?

Craig

Reply to
Musicman59
Loading thread data ...

Tail-end of WWII & it was originally designed to catch Kamakazes, hence its acceleration & climb performance. As to replacing the Wildcat or the Hellcat, I dunno.

Reply to
frank

I think they got it right. While the Hellcat was the direct follow up to the Wildcat, they kept the GM-built FM-2s around for the smaller escort carriers, so the Bearcat was meant to replace them in that particular mission, as well as just being able to whup-ass in general.

Reply to
eyeball

thx for clearing that up - the Bearcat doesn't seem to get much press..

Craig

Reply to
Musicman59

"I believe the new carriers - Midway, Roosevelt and Coral Sea would have gotten the Bearcat for the Invasion of Japan.

Reply to
Val Kraut

Reply to
Matt Wiser

And the Navy would have had a jet in the Pacific soon. A squadron of Ryan Fireballs was rushed through qualification. The carrier was loaded with the squadron's planes and just about to embark for the front when the war ended. The deployment was cancelled because the plane still had some issues, but it was essentially ready.

Reply to
Don Stauffer

"Matt Wiser" wrote in news:LJ_rm.36899$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe10.iad:

VBF? I thought the whole point of the Bearcat was as a point defense interceptor against kamikazes? Largest possible engine in the smallest possible airframe. Seems to me that is a prescription for going really fast. And the 4 x 20mm for wrecking kamikazes (meaning make them crash NOW!) before they got to close.

Reply to
Gray Ghost

ewsfe10.iad:

All carrier air groups on the big ships had VBF squadrons. And yes, VBF-18 and -19 were Bearcat equipped, with the F8F-1, which had .50s; the -2 had the 20-mm.

Reply to
Matt Wiser

That squadron was VF-66.

Reply to
Matt Wiser

I would say it was a partial jet engined aircraft. It had a radial engine for take off and landing (with propellers), and a jet engine for high speeds. The first pure jet to take off and land on a carrier was the McDonnell FH-1 Phantom (1) on January 26, 1945. The first pure jet to see combat as a carrier based aircraft was the Grumman F9F Panther, which flew during the Korean War.

Reply to
willshak

Steady on, Old Chap, the FH 1 first flew on the date quoted, but didn't do the carrier thing until July 21, 1946. Of course, "Winkle" Brown had done the business in a Sea Vampire on December 4, 1945. However, the FR 1 Fireball had made an unplanned jet landing on November 6 1945.

Regards,

Reply to
Moramarth

Don Stauffer wrote: : : And the Navy would have had a jet in the Pacific soon. A squadron of : Ryan Fireballs was rushed through qualification. : I can't call the Fireball a "jet". At best a "jet equipped aircraft", but there wasn't enough deck and/or catapult to get a Fireball in the air on jet alone. Well, and have what you would describe as a "flight". Plummit? Yes. Flight? No.

At least the "Dark Shark" would qualify for "all turbine powered aircraft", but...

Bruce

Reply to
Bruce Burden

The whole VF / VBF thing was purely administrative. Carrier fighter squadrons had become so large (seventy or more pilots) that they were impossible to handle from an adminsitrative point of view. They were therefore split into two units, each with their own command and administrative staff. Although the VBF section was nominally tasked with ground support missions, if needed, a lot of the time the VBF section was engaged in pure fighter ops. In a couple of cases the VBF section had more kills than their VF twin.

Reply to
Enzo Matrix

It was sometimes looser than that. The planes were assigned to a squadron but flown interchangably; pilots in a flight flew together because they trained together, but packages often comprised flights from both units. The F4U-1C's with 20mm cannons assigned to VB-85 were flown mainly by VBF-85 on tactical missions because the 20mm's froze up at higher altitudes.

More here--terrific website: vbf-85.com

Reply to
tomcervo

Reply to
<waltmerce

The Bearcat was designed primarily as a response to the German Focke Wulf 190 long before the Japanese started the kamikaze program. Grumman's lead designer got a chance to fly a Focke Wulf and was impressed with its overall performance and weight and decided to design a replacement for the Hellcat that incorporated the largest engine in the smallest airframe practicable. That this was the best antidote for kamikazes was purely accidental. The story of the "Kamikaze Killer" is on par with the canard that the Hellcat was designed in response to the Zero. The Hellcat was long in development before Pearl Harbor as the Bearcat was long in development before the Kamikaze threat.

John Dupre'

Reply to
John

The fighter developed specifically for low altitude kamakaze intercepts was the Goodyear F2G. It was a Corsair with a bubble canopy and an R-4360 engine. The program was cancelled after ten were built because its performance was inferior to the F4U-4 already in production and entering service and the F4U-5, which had been ordered but did not enter service until after the war. Also, introducing a radically different engine would have delayed needed Corsair production.

Reply to
Mike

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.