My father was a carrier pilot in WW2 and by 1944 had become a Navy instructor pilot. He flew Wildcats and Hellcats in combat and later the Bearcat. He also managed to get checked out in various other planes including the P40 and the P38 L When I was y ears old in 1950 I built my first Revell airplane model which was a Hellcat. I recall him telling me about his experiences in that plane. He did the same on any subsequent models I built that he had flown . I remember him stating that the Bearcat was the est fighter forcair to air combat that he had ever flown althought he hsd mever flown it in actual combat. By far his favorite all around military plane was the P38 Ll. He considered it the Cadillac of fighter interceptor types due to comfort 2 engines over water range and firepower. By 1950 he was a captain for American Airlines flying DC4s. Sadly he was later killed in a car accident some years later. I sfill have all of his logbooks which are fascinating.
I've never had the first comment before, I'd like to thank my boss Gene for firing me the week before Thanksgiving, my parents for making me defiant to safety rules, oh who else....oh yeah IHYLS for giving me something to do besides look for work....
Most interesting people get fired once.....but make sure you learn something from it Go find a job that makes you feel good. Doesn't have to be high paying or super exhilarating. But find something that you could do for a long long time
You might have mentioned that racing Bearcats twice established piston-engined speed records, with heavily-modified F8F-2 'Conquest 1' breaking the 30 year record held by the Me-209 in 1969 to 469mph, and 'Rare Bear' taking that record to 528mph in 1989, which stands to this day.
It's even more amazing that these speed records were set on the deck. I just looked it up - according to the rules, the 3km World Speed Record must be flown under 150 feet above ground level. At Las Vegas, ground level is about 2000 feet above sea level. To give some context - all those 400+ mph fighter planes from WW2 would only be capable of a little more than 300 mph at sea level. They'd do 400+ mph somewhere between 18 and 25 thousand feet, depending on how their supercharging was optimized, but at low altitude they were much slower (but so was everything else).
For what it is worth Kurt Tank was largely convinced of the merits of using a radial engine over a liquid cooled engine because of the success the US NAVY had with them. What goes around comes around!
Even the IJN shared his enthusiasm for radials. They’re much lighter and less temperamental than liquid-cooled inlines, which is why almost every plane in the IJN arsenal except for the D4Y Judy ran on radials. Kurt Tank and the IJN intended for their planes to be workhorses, but as the war progressed they also explored the merit of inline interceptors that don’t need as much air time but just as effective. Hence the Ta-152 with Jumo 213 and annular radiators.
Another false sratement on UTube , The FW 190 D-9 Dora was powered by the Jumo 213 water cooled engine.the type considered the best German fighter of the war. The Ta 152 was also thus fitted.
@@jameswebb4593 Perhaps I need to write better English because nowhere in my initial point I specified that the 213 was a radial. It was an inline, with annular radiator which gave the Dora and the Ta-152 a radial-like appearance.
Neil Armstrong - one of the X-15 pilots, and later NASA astronaut - is said to have thought the F8 was one of the best craft he ever flew. That is a source I will trust. The Bearcat, and its diametric opposite the AD Skyraider (with a payload weight equal to an F8 mind you) are probably the two WWII single engine craft I'd have wanted to fly the most. Both from the fact that I'm an abject coward and the best place to be during a battle is not present - but also the amazing capabilities of those two craft.
@@robertspence831 So far as I know, he joined before the Korean War, and thus before the crusader was in service. Armstrong joined he navy about 1949, trained on the bearcat at Corpus Christie, transitioned to the F9F Panther for war service, then went to college to be a test pilot. I've seen mention of him flying century series craft for tests or as a chase plane, but not the F8.
The design of the F8F was established before anyone at Grumman flew the FW-190. I get a kick out of how so many commenters think the F8F resembles the FW more than it resembles its Grumman progenitors.
There are also aircraft known-it-alls that claim the Hellcat was developed after the US recovered a Zero in Alaska. Not sure why they post made up crap.
Exactly.. let's see, we have this GREAT IDEA to use a closely-cowled low drag radial in a small, light plane. Because those aren't the design goals of like every fighter aircraft engineer EVER BORN lol! Everyone wants smaller and lighter, it just usually ends up being somewhat the opposite - or other considerations such as extended range start to mess things up. The power density of engines at this point in the war was also incredible, especially given the higher-octane fuels available for the Allies. Getting 2800hp out of a 2800CI engine is just insane for a low-rev aircraft powerplant.
When I got home from the Navy in 1971, I went to work for the local newspaper, The Knoxville News Sentinel & The Knoxville Journal. The owner of the Journal was Chub Smith. He owned a Bearcat. On the way to work one Saturday I heard two obviously big radial engine aircraft going overhead quite low. Flying right overhead and along the same highway way Chub’s Bearcat chasing what I thought was a B-24 Mitchell. I was only 19 years old at the time and had served my active duty in an aircraft carrier in Vietnam. This experience just added to my obsession with all things aviation. Tragically, some time in 1983, while flying the Bearcat from Knoxville to Hilton Head to meet his family for vacation, he was caught in a thunderstorm and crashed. They had to dig the Bearcat out of the ground.
I recently saw a Bearcat perform at Matherfield, at the Sacramento Air show. The sound was fantastic from that radial. They actually flew it alongside an F35 in a "Legacy Flight".
It would be interesting to see if any mock dogfights were ever held between the Bearcat and Hawker Sea Fury, which was also a late war design, and had similar performance and pedigree - that being the large radial engine of the Tempest II, but a smaller and lighter airframe. Arguably producing one of the two best super prop single engine fighter planes ever.
Given that the bearcat was designed as a low altitude dog fighter, with fantastic low altitude speed, climb rate, and maneuverability, And the sea fury wasn’t quite so specialized for that role, the bearcat is going to come out on top of a low altitude one V1 dogfight. The bearcat doesn’t have anywhere near the high altitude performance nor the range of the sea theory, however.
The F8F was the best super prop simply because it wasn’t super. It didn’t rely on an exotic engine with iffy reliability or excessive maintenance. The P-51H would be an arguable competitor. The Sea Fury made it all work, but that engine was a heavy investment in production and maintenance.
Contemporary literature & data would be a better source than the common utube comments claiming the WWII SV radials were based on the flaky old US Knight SV system. That did have all the faults, and more, that are incorrectly attributed to the WWII engines. But these were developed from a completely different design - as demonstrated when Knight tried to sue its inventors for patent infringement - and lost in the High Court. The sleeve valve radials were reported as requiring considerably less maintainance than poppet valve radials, longer time between overhaul & very low wear rates found at overhaul. Also lower oil consumption - an important issue as eg a P-47 R-2800 could use 8 gals/hr at max cont power. Perfecting mass production of accurate interchangeable sleeves was difficult but once that was sorted out by Bristol - no complex cylinder heads, exotic valves & seats, springs, rockers, tappets, pushrods, cam followers, etc. The SV engines look complex to the untrained eye because there are a lot of cylinders and so multiple sets of the same valve gear. The best big PV radials were also suberb engines of their time tho, no question.
I did learn something, but what it was I can't remember because everything in my brain was replaced by the image of binturongs eating popcorn, watching "The Bridges at Toko-Ri" in a cinema. That would be so adorable!
'Engine with a pistol grip', was a term used to describe the F8F. One of the biggest motivators in the design (along with the Tigercat) was to give carrier forces, specialized interceptors to get into a fight as quickly as possible to combat the expected growing threat of Kamikaze attacks as the U.S. planned action to move toward and began the ground force landings on Japan. In theory yes. In reality, no. It did not serve in WW2. Still, worth the mental exercise. Reminds me of the old SNL skit, postulating, what if Napoleon had a strike wing of B52s. What made it funny is the question is given to a general and his response is serious. Another specialized airplane that was for a time the best aircraft in the world and made more impressive by being a Navy carrier plane was the, wait for it................... ....... Mitsubishi A6M-2b Zero!
I hear big radials overhead, I always look up. I've shouted at people on the street to look up and admire Fifi the B-29 going over at rather low altitude.
Excellent content! All the talk about aircraft dimensions & numbers is ok but I find it challenging to digest the numbers at the speed of your talking. Yes I may be slow, even though I have been studying this subject for 60 years. A simple suggestion would be to show the dimensions on the screen. For American & British aircraft stick to imperial measurements. For all the others stick to metric, no need to mix or show both dimensions. But since this is a visual medium the best way to appreciate the difference in size of various aircraft would be to overlay the aircraft outlines with one another. The simple black line plan view published in every aircraft book would be ideal. Scaling the various plan views would be pretty straight forward. This would be a major tool in seeing the difference in scale between the aircraft discussed in this video. Yes it would be more work, but I think it would be a welcome jump in detail presented and greatly improve the presentation. On another matter, and just my opinion, when discussing the Bearcat and calling it “powerful” it’s not the first thought I conjure up. Performance was gained by weight & size reduction, but still using the same power plant as the Hellcat. The Bearcat design is more delicate and follows the Colin Chapman, of Lotus cars, design philosophy. Simplify and add lightness. The Hawker Sea Fury I would say is “powerful” and and its more robust construction allowed it to be a useful as a ground attack aircraft. The Sea Fury power plant was a step up in power from the R2800.
I don't think the x-15 classifies as a real airplane because it was launched from a bomber not by setting off from a runway. I think it's more easily classified as a human guided rocket
@@joelex7966 I wuz a radar (CIC) officer on an a/c carrier during the 60's...............sure agree on the "difficult task" - - - given all the probable variables (night, sea state et cetera ad nauseam)
those incredible figures came in the 50s with specialised fuel and stripped bare It was not at Combat weight. Whereas Spitfire JL165 Merlin 66 25lbs boost Oct 43 at Hucknall 5740ft/min to 5000ft 5080ft/min to 15000ft Combat weight
The turbo-jet spool acceleration limitations were primarily a problem for carrier landing rather than take-off. Also coupled with the lack of prop-wash over the wing. Good overall presentation tho 👍
This is silly, the X in the X-15 indicates it was experimental. AND; it was rocket powered and generally landed without an engine because it was a rocket engine and burned all of it's fuel. The X-15 never took off on it's own power, it was airlifted and launched from a high flying B-52. So your argument is about the difference between apples and watermelons.
The Bearcat was incredible. Many notable pilots praised it. Including Chuck Yeager and Neil Armstrong. (Notably for its incredible climb rate, and also aerodynamically boosted ailerons). But if including the Bearcat, one has to also look at the F2G Super Corsair, P-47M model.
I attended a Blue Angels airshow at NAS Pensacola in the early 60s. Bob Hoover performed in his Aero Commander and Corky Fornof flew an F8F Bearcat. At that time it held the climb to altitude record for piston aircraft. Most notable was the size of the propeller in length(approx 14ft) and blade width. The gear was quickly retracted and he literally hung it on the prop to 10,000 ft. Of course the sound was equally impressive.
I'd rather have four Fifties with a few thousand rounds than four 20's with a few hundred rounds, fighting Japanese or Germans. My Online gun stats after a decade are less than 2%..... I doubt they would be much better in a real plane with only a few weeks or months to learn. Beauty in Simplicity, and the All Black/Blue makes it a great Final version of the single engine Cats.
"A few thousand rds of 50 cal ammo"? Are you drunk? There were 1150 rds of 50 cal. Only a few hundred 20mm rds. Are you on drugs as well? There were 826 rds of 20mm. You'd be a fool to take the 50 cal option.
Great video! We sometimes hear about experimental Japanese fighter designs that would have been superior to the F6F had they entered production. Problem is, they ignore the fact that the superior F8F would have been entering fleet service too.
My father's employer took me up in his modified (for aerial photography) Bearcat in 1966. I was 14. A couple of years later, he died after crashing that same airplane.
It already had the essentials of the best present day cutting edge aerobatic aircraft even then. Overpowered, mid-wing, generous control surfaces and very neutral stability. I read somewhere that the prototype could be forced to part with the ground within the width of the test field runway in experienced hands.
The Bearcat was so much more maqnuvveable that any other fighter of the time. Navy and Air Force units would get into unauthorized mock dogfights, F8F vs P-51 encounters would invarriably result in Bearcat victories. Not evem when the numbers were 2 or 3 to 1, the Bearcats would always come out on top. I t was also chosen as the second airccraft for the Navy's Blue Angels demonstration team. Also the history of "Rare Bear" at the Reno Air Races stands to this day.
Where the Bearcat would have really shined - was during an invasion of Japan - where it could rapidly respond to incoming Kamikazes. Here - it's speed and rate of climb would really have made a difference. Going against Japanese Fire Traps - it's weak armament wouldn't have mattered. The thing the F6F's & F4U's had over it - was load carrying. Here - they could put Corsair's and Hellcat's on patrol loaded down with drop tanks - then - have the Bearcats in reserve to respond to incoming attacks. During Korea - they used Corsairs - again - because of it's load carrying. The Bearcat was an air-to-air aircraft - not an air-to-ground aircraft. There is some really nice CGI footage of Bearcats in the movie _Devotion_ . .
Didn't the aerodynamic heating that the X-15 was subjected to on that run damage the airframe to the point it was retired? That's in spite of the altitude the speed was achieved at along with the use of inconel in its construction.
Yes. Even with a special coat of heat resistant paint, much of the leading edges of the flight surfaces were damaged, with the ventral fin having quite a nasty gash from the ablation. You can see it in footage used to review the effects of the mach 6.7 flight here on UA-cam
The F8F had "only" 4 fittys because they had listened to a lot of experienced USN/USMC pilots tell them back when they gave them the 6 gun Wildcat that it was too much firepower for dealing with unarmored non-self sealing fuel tank Japanese aircraft and degraded performance, but the British had insisted on 6 guns for dealing with German armored fighters, so that's what the Navy got too because of production issues in 1942-43. Then they did go back to 4 fittys when they designed and built what became the FM-2 Wildcat, which was specifically designed to operate off of smaller carriers and against the Japanese, just like the F8F was to do. So the Bearcat was armed to replace the role the FM-2 Wildcat was filling on escort carriers more than the Corsair and Hellcat, hence the "weak" armament in the initial 1943-1944 design.
I only recently learned Wildcats were used throughout WW2 on escort carriers pretty successfully. A full upgrade to Bearcats with 4 .50's would've been a massive improvement let alone assuming more ammo per gun!
They did it for weight and packaging. End of story. There were more unarmored aircraft early in the war, get Grumman promptly went from 4 in the Wildcat, to 6 in the Hellcat. No one’s ever complained about 8 in the P47 either, though I guess you’d argue everything it shot at was armored in the ETO. The. Again it was also in the pacific, as was the P-38 - all of which had far more guns. There are numerous engineering reasons for the 4 guns - obviously weight and complexity in an already-small wing, but other lesser-known elements like reducing the outboard mass to increase roll rate is also a factor. They wanted it to be one of the snappiest fighters out there. Adding two additional 50s and their ammo seems almost impossible if you look at a Bearcat in person. Our TBM still has the mounting locations and ammo storage for its TWO 50s, and even that takes up a lot of space (on a massive wing.) To achieve the level of performance the Bearcat did, it just wasn’t possible. Anyways, that’s my $.02.
Interesting video! I always loved the Grumman Bearcats, but never really knew much about them. By the way, did you ever happen to guest-star in any “Seinfeld” episodes? 🤔
Some part of me always wonders what would happen to the piston aircraft industry if WW2 happened like 5-10 years earlier. As like the last few months when it ended Jets were just coming into their own. But a few years earlier Jets were an *idea* but not a practical one. Propeller aircraft would have had at least a *bit* of a postwar lifetime.
Yes, - though more plausibly, if turbo-jet development had for some reason taken, say ~10yrs longer to reach fully practical usage in the existing historical timeline - we would have seen some really interesting engines and aircraft. Similarly with digital computing and weapons systems generally.
Another great video. Thanks. However, I have question, maybe somebody can answer about Navy planes. They are all painted dark blue as camoflage over the sea, but then they are plastered with enormous numbers and letters, which ( to my mind ) renders the camoflage ineffective. What is the thinking behind the giant recognition numbers ?
The F7F had a much greater potential, fitted with the radar systems coming down the pipe , it could have been a great all weather night fighter attack . The bearcat , i just dont think that a wing hung radome would have cut it .
No chance, sadly. Also, while people focus on pure top speed numbers, the more widely useful advantages of turbo-jets come from much better rates of climb and the higher (but much lower than top speed) speeds they can maintain while manouvering leading to higher maintained rates of turn. Also remember that aero piston engine figures like 2800HP are for strictly limited durations - maximum continuous in this case would be around ~1700HP.
Another tale of what might have been , if only the war had lasted a few months longer . A rather selfish viewpoint aviation buffs like myself often hypothosize . During the Korean War the USN off loaded their Bearcats in favour of Jets , Cougar's , Panther's . Banshee's , but still retained prop powered Corvairs.
The F8F failed on too many counts to be considered the best US fighter of WW2, starting with range. Too little payload, too little durability, too little range, etc. Doesn't matter how good your aircraft is if it doesn't have the legs to make it to the battlefield. It speaks volumes that it was replaced by the F4U and was also outlasted by the P-51 in US service. It proved basically useless overall. Could have been good in a dogfight, had it ever made it to a dogfight, but not good at much else (ground attack, recon, escort, etc.).
The speeds have gotten to the point where avionics has taken over. It’s How fast is your missile now and your laser system down the road. Speed of light is nearly here already.
Bearcat was a 1 trick pony . With only a single speed supercharger it was limited to lower altitudes. Short range due to lack of space for fuel . It was designed to be a point Defence fighter , To intercept attacks on the fleet .think Kamakazis . That's why they were not used in Korea. The Corsair had a two speed supercharger plus an auxiliary supercharger had longer range than Hell cat . A top speed of almost 450 mph carry over 2,600 lbs of Ordinace and 4 20mm cannons. The Bearcat was the plane that was needed for they Carrier Battles earlier in the war .
Erm, I don't think pilots would be dogfighting at mach 6.7 LOL! The main reasons fighter speeds haven't increased since the 50's is because of the structural limitations of aluminium, the excessive fuel consumption of afterburners & the simple fact they don't need to fly any faster. Beyond mach 2.5, the enormous heat generated from air-resistance will weaken the structural integrity of aluminium so less suitable, more expensive & less manageable materials need to be employed (such as stainless steel & titanium), greatly increasing the cost & complexity of the aircraft. To achieve such speeds, an afterburner will need to be employed (the much vaunted term 'Supercruise' means the ability to cruise beyond mach 1 without afterburner. Even the F-22 needs afterburners to reach mach 2). This will cripple the fighter's range & combat persistence (take the F-4 as an example). However, the biggest reason is the Vietnam war. Upto that conflict, the old adage 'speed is king' held firm, so fighter speeds steadily grew from WW1 onwards. By the time of Vietnam, the American's were fielding mach 2.2 capable F-4's. These were initially 'missile' trucks designed to take protect the fleet at BVR interception ranges. This was because of the perceived impracticability of performing dogfights at such extreme speed so it was widely believed the dogfighting was a relic of the past. The conflict in Vietnam proved nothing was further from the truth. Firstly the NVA were feilding, on top of the supersonic Mig-19s & '21, transonic Mig-17s. The unreliability of the missile systems, together with the strict engagement rules the US pilots had to operate within, forced the F-4 into dogfighting the nimble Mig-17s, with, often, less-than-desirable results. Even against supersonic types, the F-4 were often force to engage in subsonic dogfights, once their Sparrows missiles had been used & they began to run low on fuel. In reality, supersonic performance proved to be of little value in a combat situation against other fighters, hence the 'Teen' series fighter sacrificed outright straight line performance for maneuverability (the F-16 & F-18, for instance have a maximum mach number of just 2.05 & 1.8, respectively. The modern F-35 can only reach mach 1.6).
Talking of planes too late for ww2, have you ever heard of the DeHaviland Hornet? Crazy small, crazy fast. I"d like to see a video on that. I think i"ll see if there are any, actually😅 Oh, and I"m right there wirh you on hamsters.
Had the war continued we would have seen the entrance of the P-51H and the P-72. Jet fighters would be slow to show up. Japanese air resistance would have been nearly over.
A few years ago. I saw a Blue Angle documentary. Where the F-8 is used for a 2 week period annually. I don't know if they still practice this or if the public is allowed to watch. If anyone can tell me anything I'd like to know.😊
The Bearcat was far from being the only late war single piston engined design to miss combat. Competing with the Bearcat for the theoretical title of ‘best ever’ single piston engined fighter (ie. tasked with air to air combat as its core mission) include the Spitfire Mk24, the Tempest II (probably the plane with the best airframe to take even more powerful engines but unfortunately lacking a good multistage supercharged version at the time it actually saw combat), very late stage P47 (and the experimental variant that reached prototype testing at the end of the war), post WW2 variants of the Corsair and the post war Sea Fury; BUT the most likely candidate for the title was the completely redesigned Mustang P51H - which combined a 500 pound weight reduction over the P51D but also MW-50 injection, giving it a 500hp boost and maximum speed of over 470 mph. This never saw combat, because it was held back for use in Operation Downfall, but after the surrender of Japan soon became superseded by Jet fighters. By the time of the Korean War the older, yet more ruggered P51D was preferred in the reconnaissance and ground attack roles.
Several of the late war designs did see combat post WW2 and it’s evident that the Allies had far surpassed the equivalent axis aircraft. The Corsair and sea fury and hornet demonstrated a harmony of design and performance in Korea, the Bay of Pigs and Malaya.
@ Als0 - the first iteration of what finally evolved into the Mk24 Spitfire - the Mk21 - also saw some combat in WW2 - just not in the air to air role. However, the ‘interim’ Mk XIV Spitfire saw extensive action as part of the 2nd TAF - and it was THE kick arse single engined air to air fighter of the late war. Boasting a top speed of over 450mph (although some reports say 446) and superior armament. Also seeing extensive service with the 2nd TAF was the Tempest 2 - which was THE kick arse low level fighter of the late war era, but development problems with the Napier engine saw it fielding only a single stage supercharger, which severely limited ist performance at altitude. Post WW2 naval variants of both these planes - the Mk47Fr Seafire and Sea Fury saw extensive service in the early stages of the Korean War and their is little doubt that the Sea Fury was the definitive single engine piston naval fighter; and ultimately better than the Bearcat.
11:11 Is that a pilot just opening a parachute in the background? If it is , to me it seems pretty low for a parachute of that era. Or maybe its a malfunction and the pilot is gonna have a very bad day?
My Dad became very familiar with the Bearcat. He was the engineer for Lyle Shelton's 'Rare Bear and designed its 3-blade propeller. I have Dad's copy of the 3 km World Speed Record of 528.33 mph hanging in my shop.
I'll be honest, I always had a soft spot for the F6F. I wasn't aware that the F8F was smaller than it. I was always under the impression that it was quite large.
Finally starts talking about the Bearcat at 2:32 At least with the Pacific War, we don’t have to listen to him mispronounce “Luftwaffe” so badly. Also, the Bearcat couldn’t have served with the South Vietnamese air force during the French-Indochina war because South Vietnam didn’t exist as a country until that after particular war was over. It served with the French during the war, and they transferred the planes to South Vietnam after the partition.
Slow hand clap to you Paul, pedant of the day. If the presentation is not to your liking, or you feel words are mispronounced, then move on without looking and keep your opinions to yourself - you must be a joy to know in real life.
TY-A USN version of a FW 190? Almost, but no. The F8F was faster, and never had to face being outnumbered. BIG motor, small airframe, is the overlap. Soviet designers also loved the 190, with big fighters like P-47 a mistake. I sort of agree, but I only flew a floatplane once, so no real pilot's opinion.
My father was a carrier pilot in WW2 and by 1944 had become a Navy instructor pilot. He flew Wildcats and Hellcats in combat and later the Bearcat. He also managed to get checked out in various other planes including the P40 and the P38 L
When I was y ears old in 1950
I built my first Revell airplane model which was a Hellcat.
I recall him telling me about his experiences in that plane.
He did the same on any subsequent models I built that he had flown .
I remember him stating that the Bearcat was the est fighter forcair to air combat that he had ever flown althought he hsd mever flown it in actual combat.
By far his favorite all around military plane was the P38 Ll.
He considered it the Cadillac of fighter interceptor types due to comfort 2 engines over water range and firepower.
By 1950 he was a captain for American Airlines flying DC4s.
Sadly he was later killed in a car accident some years later. I sfill have all of his logbooks which are fascinating.
All men die, but only a few truly live. I think your father is one of the latter.
amazing life, amazing story, so sorry for your loss what a guy❤❤❤
Pretty freaking cool dad you had. ❤
@HalJikaKick i think so
Publishing those log books would be interesting reading.
Thanks for sharing!
I've never had the first comment before, I'd like to thank my boss Gene for firing me the week before Thanksgiving, my parents for making me defiant to safety rules, oh who else....oh yeah IHYLS for giving me something to do besides look for work....
😂 wow.
You have been given the opportunity to find a better job! Go for it! Maybe even become your own boss. Good luck.
Most interesting people get fired once.....but make sure you learn something from it
Go find a job that makes you feel good. Doesn't have to be high paying or super exhilarating. But find something that you could do for a long long time
Good luck on the job search.🍀
Jobs are overrated , but still necessary
You might have mentioned that racing Bearcats twice established piston-engined speed records, with heavily-modified F8F-2 'Conquest 1' breaking the 30 year record held by the Me-209 in 1969 to 469mph, and 'Rare Bear' taking that record to 528mph in 1989, which stands to this day.
I got to see "Rare Bear" at the AIr Races in Reno. The thing was flat AMAZING.
Indeed - 500+ mph in a piston-powered/propeller _anything_ is absolutely amazing!
Voodoo beat that, 531+ , however, it didn't meet the 'official' criteria for some reason.
It's even more amazing that these speed records were set on the deck. I just looked it up - according to the rules, the 3km World Speed Record must be flown under 150 feet above ground level. At Las Vegas, ground level is about 2000 feet above sea level. To give some context - all those 400+ mph fighter planes from WW2 would only be capable of a little more than 300 mph at sea level. They'd do 400+ mph somewhere between 18 and 25 thousand feet, depending on how their supercharging was optimized, but at low altitude they were much slower (but so was everything else).
@@YenkoSC67 Voodoo did not satisfy the 1% rule, and only exceeded Rare Bear's record by 3mph, or about 0.6%. Rules.
For what it is worth Kurt Tank was largely convinced of the merits of using a radial engine over a liquid cooled engine because of the success the US NAVY had with them. What goes around comes around!
The FW-190 probably would have made a great naval fighter. As long as beefing it up for carrier use did not add too much weight.
Even the IJN shared his enthusiasm for radials. They’re much lighter and less temperamental than liquid-cooled inlines, which is why almost every plane in the IJN arsenal except for the D4Y Judy ran on radials. Kurt Tank and the IJN intended for their planes to be workhorses, but as the war progressed they also explored the merit of inline interceptors that don’t need as much air time but just as effective. Hence the Ta-152 with Jumo 213 and annular radiators.
Another false sratement on UTube , The FW 190 D-9 Dora was powered by the Jumo 213 water cooled engine.the type considered the best German fighter of the war. The Ta 152 was also thus fitted.
@@jameswebb4593 Perhaps I need to write better English because nowhere in my initial point I specified that the 213 was a radial. It was an inline, with annular radiator which gave the Dora and the Ta-152 a radial-like appearance.
Pun intended I hope! 👍
Neil Armstrong - one of the X-15 pilots, and later NASA astronaut - is said to have thought the F8 was one of the best craft he ever flew. That is a source I will trust. The Bearcat, and its diametric opposite the AD Skyraider (with a payload weight equal to an F8 mind you) are probably the two WWII single engine craft I'd have wanted to fly the most. Both from the fact that I'm an abject coward and the best place to be during a battle is not present - but also the amazing capabilities of those two craft.
I think Armstrong was talking about the F-8 Crusader.
@@robertspence831 Incorrect, Armstrong had a fondness for the Bearcat which he had considerable time in.
@@robertspence831 So far as I know, he joined before the Korean War, and thus before the crusader was in service. Armstrong joined he navy about 1949, trained on the bearcat at Corpus Christie, transitioned to the F9F Panther for war service, then went to college to be a test pilot. I've seen mention of him flying century series craft for tests or as a chase plane, but not the F8.
@@MrChainsawAardvark Crusader service entry 1957 Bearcat 1945 final delivery 1949
The design of the F8F was established before anyone at Grumman flew the FW-190. I get a kick out of how so many commenters think the F8F resembles the FW more than it resembles its Grumman progenitors.
There are also aircraft known-it-alls that claim the Hellcat was developed after the US recovered a Zero in Alaska. Not sure why they post made up crap.
Mfw radial engines:
Agree. It looks nothing like a FW-190
Exactly.. let's see, we have this GREAT IDEA to use a closely-cowled low drag radial in a small, light plane. Because those aren't the design goals of like every fighter aircraft engineer EVER BORN lol! Everyone wants smaller and lighter, it just usually ends up being somewhat the opposite - or other considerations such as extended range start to mess things up. The power density of engines at this point in the war was also incredible, especially given the higher-octane fuels available for the Allies. Getting 2800hp out of a 2800CI engine is just insane for a low-rev aircraft powerplant.
It came out at the wrong time The War was over and only piddling countries used it in combat
When I got home from the Navy in 1971, I went to work for the local newspaper, The Knoxville News Sentinel & The Knoxville Journal. The owner of the Journal was Chub Smith. He owned a Bearcat. On the way to work one Saturday I heard two obviously big radial engine aircraft going overhead quite low. Flying right overhead and along the same highway way Chub’s Bearcat chasing what I thought was a B-24 Mitchell. I was only 19 years old at the time and had served my active duty in an aircraft carrier in Vietnam. This experience just added to my obsession with all things aviation. Tragically, some time in 1983, while flying the Bearcat from Knoxville to Hilton Head to meet his family for vacation, he was caught in a thunderstorm and crashed. They had to dig the Bearcat out of the ground.
Thank you for not putting in those horrible clicking and swishing noises every time the scene changes or a picture comes up like others do.
I recently saw a Bearcat perform at Matherfield, at the Sacramento Air show. The sound was fantastic from that radial. They actually flew it alongside an F35 in a "Legacy Flight".
I love that dark blue color the Navy was using on planes back then.
Ive always loved the look and story of the bearcat and tigercat! so many what ifs on those two planes that never really got much of a chance to shine
It would be interesting to see if any mock dogfights were ever held between the Bearcat and Hawker Sea Fury, which was also a late war design, and had similar performance and pedigree - that being the large radial engine of the Tempest II, but a smaller and lighter airframe. Arguably producing one of the two best super prop single engine fighter planes ever.
Given that the bearcat was designed as a low altitude dog fighter, with fantastic low altitude speed, climb rate, and maneuverability, And the sea fury wasn’t quite so specialized for that role, the bearcat is going to come out on top of a low altitude one V1 dogfight. The bearcat doesn’t have anywhere near the high altitude performance nor the range of the sea theory, however.
Bearcat
@@JWZelch Bearcat service ceiling 40000ft Sea Fury 36000ft
Favorite prop fighter for us tech tree in warthunder. It’s just too good
The 6.3 one is weird but the (now) 4.7 one is god tier
The F8F was the best super prop simply because it wasn’t super. It didn’t rely on an exotic engine with iffy reliability or excessive maintenance. The P-51H would be an arguable competitor. The Sea Fury made it all work, but that engine was a heavy investment in production and maintenance.
Contemporary literature & data would be a better source than the common utube comments claiming the WWII SV radials were based on the flaky old US Knight SV system. That did have all the faults, and more, that are incorrectly attributed to the WWII engines. But these were developed from a completely different design - as demonstrated when Knight tried to sue its inventors for patent infringement - and lost in the High Court.
The sleeve valve radials were reported as requiring considerably less maintainance than poppet valve radials, longer time between overhaul & very low wear rates found at overhaul. Also lower oil consumption - an important issue as eg a P-47 R-2800 could use 8 gals/hr at max cont power.
Perfecting mass production of accurate interchangeable sleeves was difficult but once that was sorted out by Bristol - no complex cylinder heads, exotic valves & seats, springs, rockers, tappets, pushrods, cam followers, etc. The SV engines look complex to the untrained eye because there are a lot of cylinders and so multiple sets of the same valve gear. The best big PV radials were also suberb engines of their time tho, no question.
I did learn something, but what it was I can't remember because everything in my brain was replaced by the image of binturongs eating popcorn, watching "The Bridges at Toko-Ri" in a cinema.
That would be so adorable!
'Engine with a pistol grip', was a term used to describe the F8F.
One of the biggest motivators in the design (along with the Tigercat) was to give carrier
forces, specialized interceptors to get into a fight as quickly as possible to combat the expected growing threat of Kamikaze attacks as the U.S. planned action to move toward and began the ground force landings on Japan.
In theory yes. In reality, no. It did not serve in WW2. Still, worth the mental exercise.
Reminds me of the old SNL skit, postulating, what if Napoleon had a strike wing of B52s.
What made it funny is the question is given to a general and his response is serious.
Another specialized airplane that was for a time the best aircraft in the world and made
more impressive by being a Navy carrier plane was the, wait for it...................
.......
Mitsubishi A6M-2b Zero!
Great fun as always. Big radial engines are such a fascinating field of engineering, obsolete or not.
I hear big radials overhead, I always look up. I've shouted at people on the street to look up and admire Fifi the B-29 going over at rather low altitude.
Excellent content! All the talk about aircraft dimensions & numbers is ok but I find it challenging to digest the numbers at the speed of your talking. Yes I may be slow, even though I have been studying this subject for 60 years. A simple suggestion would be to show the dimensions on the screen. For American & British aircraft stick to imperial measurements. For all the others stick to metric, no need to mix or show both dimensions. But since this is a visual medium the best way to appreciate the difference in size of various aircraft would be to overlay the aircraft outlines with one another. The simple black line plan view published in every aircraft book would be ideal. Scaling the various plan views would be pretty straight forward. This would be a major tool in seeing the difference in scale between the aircraft discussed in this video. Yes it would be more work, but I think it would be a welcome jump in detail presented and greatly improve the presentation.
On another matter, and just my opinion, when discussing the Bearcat and calling it “powerful” it’s not the first thought I conjure up. Performance was gained by weight & size reduction, but still using the same power plant as the Hellcat. The Bearcat design is more delicate and follows the Colin Chapman, of Lotus cars, design philosophy. Simplify and add lightness. The Hawker Sea Fury I would say is “powerful” and and its more robust construction allowed it to be a useful as a ground attack aircraft. The Sea Fury power plant was a step up in power from the R2800.
I don't think the x-15 classifies as a real airplane because it was launched from a bomber not by setting off from a runway. I think it's more easily classified as a human guided rocket
Eric Winkle Brown, the famous British test pilot referred to the Bearcat as the Pinacle of single engine piston fighter development.
As one of the pinnacles….. he said he couldn’t choose between the Bearcat and the Sea Fury and that combat would be decided by the pilot.
@robertpatrick3350 was the sea fury the final evolution of the tempest?
Winkle was arguably the greatest pilot ever. Just look up the conditions of the first jet carrier landing.
@WilliamDoyle-rb6lt I agree. He became a test pilot on the strength of his carrier landings. A difficult task under the best of conditions.
@@joelex7966 I wuz a radar (CIC) officer on an a/c carrier during the 60's...............sure agree on the "difficult task" - - - given all the probable variables (night, sea state et cetera ad nauseam)
The prime focus of the Bearcat was to counter kamikaze attacks through its incredible climb to altitude specs.
those incredible figures came in the 50s with specialised fuel and stripped bare It was not at Combat weight. Whereas Spitfire JL165 Merlin 66 25lbs boost Oct 43 at Hucknall 5740ft/min to 5000ft 5080ft/min to 15000ft Combat weight
The 'Blue Angels' used the F8F Bearcat beginning in 1946. It was the first plane used by the team to have the 'Blue Angles' name on it.
Followed by the F7F Tigercat iirc
The turbo-jet spool acceleration limitations were primarily a problem for carrier landing rather than take-off. Also coupled with the lack of prop-wash over the wing. Good overall presentation tho 👍
0:26 my grandfather was NAA's chief test pilot for that program, among other things.
This is silly, the X in the X-15 indicates it was experimental. AND; it was rocket powered and generally landed without an engine because it was a rocket engine and burned all of it's fuel. The X-15 never took off on it's own power, it was airlifted and launched from a high flying B-52. So your argument is about the difference between apples and watermelons.
The Bearcat was incredible.
Many notable pilots praised it. Including Chuck Yeager and Neil Armstrong. (Notably for its incredible climb rate, and also aerodynamically boosted ailerons).
But if including the Bearcat, one has to also look at the F2G Super Corsair, P-47M model.
I attended a Blue Angels airshow at NAS Pensacola in the early 60s. Bob Hoover performed in his Aero Commander and Corky Fornof flew an F8F Bearcat. At that time it held the climb to altitude record for piston aircraft.
Most notable was the size of the propeller in length(approx 14ft) and blade width. The gear was quickly retracted and he literally hung it on the prop to 10,000 ft.
Of course the sound was equally impressive.
This was the first model plane I ever built. That was 50 years ago! Great plane,
Not my first but I remember
Thank you for explaining why it never served in the Korean war, but it would have surpassed the corsair if it went there.
Hamsters!!!! That came out of nowhere!!! Made me chuckle!
Learn something new every day, never knew about those tear-away wing tips. Thanks!
I'd rather have four Fifties with a few thousand rounds than four 20's with a few hundred rounds, fighting Japanese or Germans.
My Online gun stats after a decade are less than 2%..... I doubt they would be much better in a real plane with only a few weeks or months to learn.
Beauty in Simplicity, and the All Black/Blue makes it a great Final version of the single engine Cats.
"A few thousand rds of 50 cal ammo"? Are you drunk? There were 1150 rds of 50 cal.
Only a few hundred 20mm rds. Are you on drugs as well? There were 826 rds of 20mm. You'd be a fool to take the 50 cal option.
Well you would be dead.
F8F was something I would beeline in Iron Storm, a very old strategy game.
Great video! We sometimes hear about experimental Japanese fighter designs that would have been superior to the F6F had they entered production. Problem is, they ignore the fact that the superior F8F would have been entering fleet service too.
Great presentation. Thank you for posting.
"And you can have all the Bearcats you want, Mr. Wilson!" 😁
Lord have mercy that is one hell of a lot of engineering into one small package!
My father's employer took me up in his modified (for aerial photography) Bearcat in 1966. I was 14. A couple of years later, he died after crashing that same airplane.
It already had the essentials of the best present day cutting edge aerobatic aircraft even then. Overpowered, mid-wing, generous control surfaces and very neutral stability. I read somewhere that the prototype could be forced to part with the ground within the width of the test field runway in experienced hands.
Captivating briefing. Thorough job.
I'm lucky enough to have seen the flying models that are running the airshow circuits in recent years.
The Bearcat was so much more maqnuvveable that any other fighter of the time. Navy and Air Force units would get into unauthorized mock dogfights, F8F vs P-51 encounters would invarriably result in Bearcat victories. Not evem when the numbers were 2 or 3 to 1, the Bearcats would always come out on top. I t was also chosen as the second airccraft for the Navy's Blue Angels demonstration team. Also the history of "Rare Bear" at the Reno Air Races stands to this day.
Where the Bearcat would have really shined - was during an invasion of Japan - where it could rapidly respond to incoming Kamikazes.
Here - it's speed and rate of climb would really have made a difference.
Going against Japanese Fire Traps - it's weak armament wouldn't have mattered.
The thing the F6F's & F4U's had over it - was load carrying. Here - they could put Corsair's and Hellcat's on patrol loaded down with drop tanks - then - have the Bearcats in reserve to respond to incoming attacks.
During Korea - they used Corsairs - again - because of it's load carrying. The Bearcat was an air-to-air aircraft - not an air-to-ground aircraft.
There is some really nice CGI footage of Bearcats in the movie _Devotion_ .
.
The Bearcat's contribution in WWII was, in all honesty, negligible. This kind of belongs in the same bucket as the Pershing tank.
Didn't the aerodynamic heating that the X-15 was subjected to on that run damage the airframe to the point it was retired? That's in spite of the altitude the speed was achieved at along with the use of inconel in its construction.
Yes. Even with a special coat of heat resistant paint, much of the leading edges of the flight surfaces were damaged, with the ventral fin having quite a nasty gash from the ablation. You can see it in footage used to review the effects of the mach 6.7 flight here on UA-cam
The F8F had "only" 4 fittys because they had listened to a lot of experienced USN/USMC pilots tell them back when they gave them the 6 gun Wildcat that it was too much firepower for dealing with unarmored non-self sealing fuel tank Japanese aircraft and degraded performance, but the British had insisted on 6 guns for dealing with German armored fighters, so that's what the Navy got too because of production issues in 1942-43. Then they did go back to 4 fittys when they designed and built what became the FM-2 Wildcat, which was specifically designed to operate off of smaller carriers and against the Japanese, just like the F8F was to do. So the Bearcat was armed to replace the role the FM-2 Wildcat was filling on escort carriers more than the Corsair and Hellcat, hence the "weak" armament in the initial 1943-1944 design.
I only recently learned Wildcats were used throughout WW2 on escort carriers pretty successfully. A full upgrade to Bearcats with 4 .50's would've been a massive improvement let alone assuming more ammo per gun!
They did it for weight and packaging. End of story.
There were more unarmored aircraft early in the war, get Grumman promptly went from 4 in the Wildcat, to 6 in the Hellcat. No one’s ever complained about 8 in the P47 either, though I guess you’d argue everything it shot at was armored in the ETO. The. Again it was also in the pacific, as was the P-38 - all of which had far more guns.
There are numerous engineering reasons for the 4 guns - obviously weight and complexity in an already-small wing, but other lesser-known elements like reducing the outboard mass to increase roll rate is also a factor. They wanted it to be one of the snappiest fighters out there.
Adding two additional 50s and their ammo seems almost impossible if you look at a Bearcat in person. Our TBM still has the mounting locations and ammo storage for its TWO 50s, and even that takes up a lot of space (on a massive wing.)
To achieve the level of performance the Bearcat did, it just wasn’t possible. Anyways, that’s my $.02.
Thoug 15:42 h by Korea they got fiercer fangs -- different air threat -- and replaced the fifties with four cannons.
Spirited performance for sure but without the bomb carry capacity and ground attack performance of the Corsair.
Interesting video! I always loved the Grumman Bearcats, but never really knew much about them.
By the way, did you ever happen to guest-star in any “Seinfeld” episodes? 🤔
Another Great video.
It is a beautiful airplane.
Peak Piston. Period. If I was going to buy one and only one WW2 fighter as a joy rider toy, this would be it.
Do the Tiger Cat next, please!
This, the x rated bird
“Heroes Of The Pacific” has a good what if especially over Iwo Jima.
Definition of “clean lines”!!!
Great looking plane 🏅
Some part of me always wonders what would happen to the piston aircraft industry if WW2 happened like 5-10 years earlier. As like the last few months when it ended Jets were just coming into their own. But a few years earlier Jets were an *idea* but not a practical one. Propeller aircraft would have had at least a *bit* of a postwar lifetime.
Yes, - though more plausibly, if turbo-jet development had for some reason taken, say ~10yrs longer to reach fully practical usage in the existing historical timeline - we would have seen some really interesting engines and aircraft. Similarly with digital computing and weapons systems generally.
Really good. Thank you!
Bearcats needed long legs for those giant props.
At least the French got to play with them.
What a beast, pity it missed it's war.
Another great video. Thanks. However, I have question, maybe somebody can answer about Navy planes. They are all painted dark blue as camoflage over the sea, but then they are plastered with enormous numbers and letters, which ( to my mind ) renders the camoflage ineffective. What is the thinking behind the giant recognition numbers ?
The Bearcat was under gunned as it was optimized to kill lighter built Japanese warplanes. The Navy brought back the Corsair for Korea.
The F7F had a much greater potential, fitted with the radar systems coming down the pipe , it could have been a great all weather night fighter attack . The bearcat , i just dont think that a wing hung radome would have cut it .
Tactical and Critical Mach? Other radials did not do well P47 0.72 Corsair 075 and what about drag coefficient
Beautiful airplane
Would have been interesting had they had fitted the 2,800hp version of the R-2800. Probably equal the ME 262's top speed pehaps?
No chance, sadly. Also, while people focus on pure top speed numbers, the more widely useful advantages of turbo-jets come from much better rates of climb and the higher (but much lower than top speed) speeds they can maintain while manouvering leading to higher maintained rates of turn. Also remember that aero piston engine figures like 2800HP are for strictly limited durations - maximum continuous in this case would be around ~1700HP.
Leeeeeroy
Grumman!
Were you expecting something else?
Another tale of what might have been , if only the war had lasted a few months longer . A rather selfish viewpoint aviation buffs like myself often hypothosize .
During the Korean War the USN off loaded their Bearcats in favour of Jets , Cougar's , Panther's . Banshee's , but still retained prop powered Corvairs.
The F8F failed on too many counts to be considered the best US fighter of WW2, starting with range.
Too little payload, too little durability, too little range, etc.
Doesn't matter how good your aircraft is if it doesn't have the legs to make it to the battlefield. It speaks volumes that it was replaced by the F4U and was also outlasted by the P-51 in US service. It proved basically useless overall. Could have been good in a dogfight, had it ever made it to a dogfight, but not good at much else (ground attack, recon, escort, etc.).
Now do the Bearsquatch.
The speeds have gotten to the point where avionics has taken over. It’s How fast is your missile now and your laser system down the road. Speed of light is nearly here already.
Bearcat was a 1 trick pony . With only a single speed supercharger it was limited to lower altitudes. Short range due to lack of space for fuel . It was designed to be a point Defence fighter , To intercept attacks on the fleet .think Kamakazis . That's why they were not used in Korea. The Corsair had a two speed supercharger plus an auxiliary supercharger had longer range than Hell cat . A top speed of almost 450 mph carry over 2,600 lbs of Ordinace and 4 20mm cannons. The Bearcat was the plane that was needed for they Carrier Battles earlier in the war .
13 Gs would certainly cause the pilot to pass out, even with the G-suit that wasn't in use yet.
A Secretary Bird in fighter form.
Erm, I don't think pilots would be dogfighting at mach 6.7 LOL! The main reasons fighter speeds haven't increased since the 50's is because of the structural limitations of aluminium, the excessive fuel consumption of afterburners & the simple fact they don't need to fly any faster.
Beyond mach 2.5, the enormous heat generated from air-resistance will weaken the structural integrity of aluminium so less suitable, more expensive & less manageable materials need to be employed (such as stainless steel & titanium), greatly increasing the cost & complexity of the aircraft.
To achieve such speeds, an afterburner will need to be employed (the much vaunted term 'Supercruise' means the ability to cruise beyond mach 1 without afterburner. Even the F-22 needs afterburners to reach mach 2).
This will cripple the fighter's range & combat persistence (take the F-4 as an example).
However, the biggest reason is the Vietnam war. Upto that conflict, the old adage 'speed is king' held firm, so fighter speeds steadily grew from WW1 onwards.
By the time of Vietnam, the American's were fielding mach 2.2 capable F-4's. These were initially 'missile' trucks designed to take protect the fleet at BVR interception ranges. This was because of the perceived impracticability of performing dogfights at such extreme speed so it was widely believed the dogfighting was a relic of the past.
The conflict in Vietnam proved nothing was further from the truth. Firstly the NVA were feilding, on top of the supersonic Mig-19s & '21, transonic Mig-17s. The unreliability of the missile systems, together with the strict engagement rules the US pilots had to operate within, forced the F-4 into dogfighting the nimble Mig-17s, with, often, less-than-desirable results.
Even against supersonic types, the F-4 were often force to engage in subsonic dogfights, once their Sparrows missiles had been used & they began to run low on fuel.
In reality, supersonic performance proved to be of little value in a combat situation against other fighters, hence the 'Teen' series fighter sacrificed outright straight line performance for maneuverability (the F-16 & F-18, for instance have a maximum mach number of just 2.05 & 1.8, respectively. The modern F-35 can only reach mach 1.6).
I've been told the Bearcat was the last nail in the coffin for the Goodyear F2G Super Corsair. Bearcat simply was a better fighter.
Everywhere else was going to Jets
Talking of planes too late for ww2, have you ever heard of the DeHaviland Hornet? Crazy small, crazy fast. I"d like to see a video on that. I think i"ll see if there are any, actually😅
Oh, and I"m right there wirh you on hamsters.
Except he already did, check his video list at 10 months ago
It was a good Blue Angel and air racer.
Had the war continued we would have seen the entrance of the P-51H and the P-72. Jet fighters would be slow to show up. Japanese air resistance would have been nearly over.
This is an AMERICAN plane--describe its dimensions using feet, not meters!
Heat. Heat is the limiting factor for rocket planes within the atmosphere. Not power, or shock wave, or (snicker) g forces. ;)
A few years ago. I saw a Blue Angle documentary. Where the F-8 is used for a 2 week period annually. I don't know if they still practice this or if the public is allowed to watch. If anyone can tell me anything I'd like to know.😊
Hey IHYLS could you please make a video about the polish light bomber the pzl.p23 karaś?
PS it was the first plane to bomb Germany in WW2
4-50s that’s 2 less and that takes away the weight of that ammunition supply also. Not totally sold on giving up the firepower.
Love a Bearcat mate.
But - the best single engined Allied fighter of WW2? Nope.
Not it’s fault.
But just nope…
The Bearcat was far from being the only late war single piston engined design to miss combat. Competing with the Bearcat for the theoretical title of ‘best ever’ single piston engined fighter (ie. tasked with air to air combat as its core mission) include the Spitfire Mk24, the Tempest II (probably the plane with the best airframe to take even more powerful engines but unfortunately lacking a good multistage supercharged version at the time it actually saw combat), very late stage P47 (and the experimental variant that reached prototype testing at the end of the war), post WW2 variants of the Corsair and the post war Sea Fury; BUT the most likely candidate for the title was the completely redesigned Mustang P51H - which combined a 500 pound weight reduction over the P51D but also MW-50 injection, giving it a 500hp boost and maximum speed of over 470 mph. This never saw combat, because it was held back for use in Operation Downfall, but after the surrender of Japan soon became superseded by Jet fighters. By the time of the Korean War the older, yet more ruggered P51D was preferred in the reconnaissance and ground attack roles.
I nominate it's grumman stablemate, the f7f tigercat
@ a twin engine design, if I’m not mistaken.
@@andrewmetcalfe9898 Yes if we consider twin engine fighters the de havilland hornet would probably be no1
Several of the late war designs did see combat post WW2 and it’s evident that the Allies had far surpassed the equivalent axis aircraft. The Corsair and sea fury and hornet demonstrated a harmony of design and performance in Korea, the Bay of Pigs and Malaya.
@ Als0 - the first iteration of what finally evolved into the Mk24 Spitfire - the Mk21 - also saw some combat in WW2 - just not in the air to air role. However, the ‘interim’ Mk XIV Spitfire saw extensive action as part of the 2nd TAF - and it was THE kick arse single engined air to air fighter of the late war. Boasting a top speed of over 450mph (although some reports say 446) and superior armament. Also seeing extensive service with the 2nd TAF was the Tempest 2 - which was THE kick arse low level fighter of the late war era, but development problems with the Napier engine saw it fielding only a single stage supercharger, which severely limited ist performance at altitude. Post WW2 naval variants of both these planes - the Mk47Fr Seafire and Sea Fury saw extensive service in the early stages of the Korean War and their is little doubt that the Sea Fury was the definitive single engine piston naval fighter; and ultimately better than the Bearcat.
A very limited range disqualifies it as the best fighter of WW2.
Unfortunately, the F-8F never made it into the war. It was just a bit too late. Neither did the Skyraider.
11:11 Is that a pilot just opening a parachute in the background? If it is , to me it seems pretty low for a parachute of that era. Or maybe its a malfunction and the pilot is gonna have a very bad day?
Well it wasn't used during WW2 so how could it have been the best? Personally I think it's on par with the later models of the Corsair.
can something that didn't really do anything be considered the best
My Dad became very familiar with the Bearcat. He was the engineer for Lyle Shelton's 'Rare Bear and designed its 3-blade propeller. I have Dad's copy of the 3 km World Speed Record of 528.33 mph hanging in my shop.
I'll be honest, I always had a soft spot for the F6F. I wasn't aware that the F8F was smaller than it. I was always under the impression that it was quite large.
Same here.🤓👍
The F8F stood tall because of it's huge propeller.
Finally starts talking about the Bearcat at 2:32
At least with the Pacific War, we don’t have to listen to him mispronounce “Luftwaffe” so badly.
Also, the Bearcat couldn’t have served with the South Vietnamese air force during the French-Indochina war because South Vietnam didn’t exist as a country until that after particular war was over. It served with the French during the war, and they transferred the planes to South Vietnam after the partition.
Slow hand clap to you Paul, pedant of the day. If the presentation is not to your liking, or you feel words are mispronounced, then move on without looking and keep your opinions to yourself - you must be a joy to know in real life.
@ Wow, UA-cam just runneth over today with people who take themselves too seriously.
Best U.S. Navy prop fighter? Yep. Best prop of WWII? Doubtful. There needed to be a fly-off with the P-51H and the Sea Fury which never happened.
I’m sure they have them they just keep it a secret
TY-A USN version of a FW 190? Almost, but no. The F8F was faster, and never had to face being outnumbered. BIG motor, small airframe, is the overlap. Soviet designers also loved the 190, with big fighters like P-47 a mistake. I sort of agree, but I only flew a floatplane once, so no real pilot's opinion.
We all know the best US fighter of ww2 was the P-26
Too bad, the bearcat did not get into combat. But we did not want to invade Japan so I guess it worked out.
Best fighter American nearly fielded in WWII? Nope. P-51H. No notes.