Author Topic: What's So Special About The Bearcat? (Read 3463 times)

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #60 on:** October 30, 2000, 08:16:00 PM »

Sorry Westy I read that story several years ago in a very good Grumman book, and thats just how it happend.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #61 on:** October 30, 2000, 08:29:00 PM »

Hi

Here is just how far fetched the story is. You have to take this big a leap of logic to see the connection. Grumman test pilot flies 190 and thinks Gee just how good could this be if we build something close to it and put a whopping big R2800 in it. And coincidentaly Bearcat is almost an exact match for 190 in length, span, and weight. Plus design of the Bearcat started right after he returned from testing the 190. Plus you have to remember there was NO Grumman policy or official navy requirement asking for a lighter smaller fighter, but then the plane they build almost exactly matches the 190 in all those main dimensions, and he 190 is a very compact fighter by US standards.
Thats why I say that you guys seem to have an emotional reaction to this, its all very simple and straight forward, but u fellas just are unwilling to put your biases aside. Im not saying the Bearcat is a copy of the 190, Its obviously a Grumman plane with ties to F6F and F4F, Im just saying that the 190s overall design and capabilities influenced Grumman to take the particular direction and make the Bearcat the way it turned out.

thanks GRUNHERZ

Jigster · « **Reply #62 on:** October 30, 2000, 08:48:00 PM »

Show me some prejudice. Your just flapping yer jaws with a bunch of vague statements and references, and one quote that is perhaps the only concrete if it's taken as circumstantial.

"Well I read..."
"Heavy influenced..."
"simular"
"designer flew it"
"oh, test pilot flew it, and told the design team about it"

To paraphrase, blah blah blah.

The 190 wasn't the first compact airframe with a powerful engine. That's what's so stupid about this.

You've made an inference that because one associate of Grumman liked the Fw-190 that he went home and immediately tried to make an American counterpart. Taking only into account that the "design ethic" was to use a compact airframe with the Double Wasp. It's just stupid. I mean, it's like you want to believe the Fw 190 was the first compact fighter.

The don't look alike, and are nearly complete opposites in handling.

Woohoo. Just like every monoplane after the first one was a direct descendent. Even if it goes 450 mph faster and is compact, it's a direct descendent. It has simular dimentions and an inline engine. It HAS to be right?

Just like saying the P-51 is a direct descendent from the Bf-109 (gag)

Major generation gaps.

Ain't confirmation bias great?

Constantly proven wrong in one area after another here, but you just keep backing off.

First the F8F was "based off the 190" because of a test pilot's words. Now it's
"same design ethic"

how much more general can you get?

The F4F was a small, compact monoplane fighter fitting a powerful radial. It was underpowered and slow. It evolved to the F6F. A bigger airframe for the much larger Double Wasp as opposed to the Cyclone. Then back to the compact airframe like the F4F (and had been expiremented with the FM2)
Combine the two and you've got most of the elements for the F8F, save the new perks that came through the years that couldn't be put into the other designs.

Perhaps, the Fw-190 might have made the Grumman team make up their minds that, yes, they wanted to go back to the compact airframe. That wouble be about it. But that's ignoring the FM2 and the other hanger queens the Grumman corp had laying around.

- Jig

[This message has been edited by Jigster (edited 10-30-2000).]

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #63 on:** October 30, 2000, 08:57:00 PM »

Hi

You are right I made the whole thing up and had it printed up in some book that was probably published while I was in preschool. Sorry for fooling all of you. I apologize.

thanks GRUNHERZ

Jigster · « **Reply #64 on:** October 30, 2000, 09:06:00 PM »

I just wouldn't try to make direct quotes out something from memory.

If you've got a title, author, etc. this would be totally different, (as well as all that in context and not just a test pilot opinion) I'm just pointing out there's nothing concrete about this other then "I read that..."

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #65 on:** October 30, 2000, 10:30:00 PM »

Hi

Your right about that, Ill try my best to find the book again in the next few weeks.

thanks GRUNHERZ

SnakeEyes · « **Reply #66 on:** October 30, 2000, 10:31:00 PM »

Grun:

I personally agree that the 190 inspired alot of the F8F design, however according to CC Jordan's webpage (which I've usually found to be reasonably accurate), it sounds like there was a requirement set down for it:

"The criterion set down for the design was somewhat different than requirements for its older sibling, the F6F Hellcat. This design was for an extremely high performance interceptor. The design goals included unparalleled agility, unprecedented acceleration, high rate of climb, excellent low level performance and the ability to operate off of every carrier from the upcoming Midway class down to the smallest escort carrier. Some historians have declared that the Bearcat was a response to Japanese kamikaze attacks. However, while the F8F was certainly the best fighter for combating these suicide assaults, the historians who espouse this theory are incorrect. The XF8F-1 was ordered in November 1943, the Kamikazes did not debut until eleven months later in October 1944."

------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #67 on:** October 30, 2000, 10:47:00 PM »

Hi

IIRC what I read in the book was that the pilots 190 experiences led him to lobby at Grumman specifically for the new fighter right after he returned from the testing, so what you mention might just be the result of his efforts.
But ill try to find the book again in the next few weeks, and hope to have more detailed info on this.

thanks GRUNHERZ

-lazs- · « **Reply #68 on:** October 31, 2000, 08:35:00 AM »

so a test pilot designed the Bearcat?
lazs

Jigster · « **Reply #69 on:** October 31, 2000, 02:22:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by -lazs-:
so a test pilot designed the Bearcat?
lazs

LOL... as Gen. Al Boyd (in charge of Wright Field, Ohio during the "golden years") so accurately put it...

"Test pilots give FACTS and FACTS alone."

-tronski- · « **Reply #70 on:** October 31, 2000, 09:23:00 PM »

Yawn..FRIKKEN yawn...

Put the bloody thing in..then you can argue about the subtypes..
It would seem if it don't have stars+bars...or isn't a black crossed Kurt tank design...it dont have a snow balls chance...How bout all push for something that measured its combat life in years, or even months..than weeks

tronsky

juzz · « **Reply #71 on:** October 31, 2000, 11:21:00 PM »

Subtype F8F-1B had 4x20mm... Muahahahahaha!

Vermillion · « **Reply #72 on:** November 01, 2000, 07:46:00 AM »

Right Juzz, but that was the Korean vintage Bearcat, not the WWII vintage

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

Minotaur · « **Reply #73 on:** November 03, 2000, 12:30:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo:
Man no one has even mentioned that that small airframe can take 4 hispanos....
OUCH.
How many rounds per gun...anyone know?

Yes Sir!

Actually, this was the gun configuration that I thought was the standard. Meaning the 4x20mm one. I was very surprised no body mentioned it earlier in the thread. (Too BZ arguing I thinks)

Basically for the MA, it would be a F4U-1C on steroids, considering the A2A role. I am not sure of its ground attack capability, but not many perkers would risk that.

IMO a very good perk plane.

------------------
Mino
The Wrecking Crew

"Hind tit suckin whiners. Begone with yah!"
Hangtime

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #74 on:** November 03, 2000, 01:42:00 AM »

Hi

The 20mm are not standard on any WW2 era Bearcat. The Bearcats that everyone is talking about here, the ones on the carriers late in 45, had the 4x.50cal armament only. None of them had the 20mm. None! Its allready a strech with the chog but a Bearcat with 20mm would make AH 100% pointless as any realistic interpretattion of air combat of WW2. Next after the Bearcat would be another F8 of the Vought variety, it too would have 4 20mm guns, surely followed by F100s also with 4 20mm. I love Grumman planes and the Bearcat has always been a favorite, but a 20mm Bearcat in AH would be completly unacceptable as far as any aspect of historical accuracy is concerned. WW2 Bearcats only had 4 50 cals, if you want 20mm ask for an Indochina or USN reserve sim where you can fire them 20mm all day long. No way in AH!

thanks GRUNHERZ