Bearcat

Ok what about this, Bearcat Vs Ryan Xfr-1 Fireball. I know this is hypothetical but both are late war developments.

I believe the Bearcat had a higher top speed but I am not sure of the climb rate of the Fireball???

Ok what about this, Bearcat Vs Ryan Xfr-1 Fireball. I know this is hypothetical but both are late war developments.

Tillman says in “Corsair” (p. 154, not quoting anyone else, author’s statement): “F8F would have become the fleet’s only pure fighter”. But, the F4U and F6F already weren’t used as pure fighters by 1945. Maybe semantics, but I was speaking of the F4U literally replacing the F8F, as happened from late 40’s, when some F8F units handed them in for F4U’s, not both types serving alongside one another but one used more as a pure fighter.

I don’ have a source for a negative, I’d just never seen a solid statement about F8F replacing the F4U in any concrete way, didn’t interpret Tillman that way. On production side, Vought was producing F4U’s (and Goodyear FG’s) flat out in 1945 and intended to continue. The replacement was Grumman switching away from F6F to F8F, and General Motors to switch from FM (ie F4F) to F3M (ie. F8F) production.

Re: BSG-75, there were postwar contracts for both F8F’s and F4U’s, figures vary but one set is 293 F8F-2’s, 467 F4U-5’s but most of latter were specialist versions (-5N and -5P). That was pretty small change in both cases compared to even the diminished post-WWII USN fleet, especially given the high rate of wastage in accidents typical at the time. Prop fighter units were mainly filled out with F4U-4’s, almost 2400 of which had been built, compared to well under 1,000 F8F’s from wartime contracts. So when deciding to standardize on one piston fighter alongside jets in late 40’s, the USN went with the numbers and decided to phase out the F8F first. Later during Korea, the Marines got 110 (or so) new AU-1’s produced in 1952, most survivors of which went to the French right after the war, along with 94 F4U-7’s produced in 52-53 for the French.

Joe

Well, I think we are talking past each other. My point wasn’t that the Bearcat was going to replace the Corsair on the production line. Just that it had been planned to replace Corsairs in a purely fighter role. Clearly, if the Bearcat had entered service before the close of WWII. Both would have operated side by side. With the Bearcat operating more in the Air Superiority Role and the Corsair more in the Fighter Bomber Role. Which, makes perfect sense……………..As for the Korean War Jets provided the Air Superiority Role leaving piston-engined aircraft to close support. With the Corsair more suited to the role than the Bearcat. (and available in far greater numbers)

BTW: I am a great fan of the F4U Corsair! I even met Pappy Boyington some years ago………along with many other Corsair Aces.

.

Re: BSG-75, there were postwar contracts for both F8F’s and F4U’s,
Joe

Thanks for the info – based on what we know, seems the right choice, it was a proven fighter bomber by then. I love the US quote about how it could lift the load of the famous Mosquito, which in turn could take the same bombload to Berlin as the B-17… lies, damn lies and statistics!

Well, I am going strickly by memory and read it from several sources. Yet, I believe the main one I was thinking about. Was in a book about Corsairs by Tilman. Quoting Adm. Nimitz………Which, I unfortunately gave to a friend a few years back. By the way what was your source????

Tillman says in “Corsair” (p. 154, not quoting anyone else, author’s statement): “F8F would have become the fleet’s only pure fighter”. But, the F4U and F6F already weren’t used as pure fighters by 1945. Maybe semantics, but I was speaking of the F4U literally replacing the F8F, as happened from late 40’s, when some F8F units handed them in for F4U’s, not both types serving alongside one another but one used more as a pure fighter.

I don’ have a source for a negative, I’d just never seen a solid statement about F8F replacing the F4U in any concrete way, didn’t interpret Tillman that way. On production side, Vought was producing F4U’s (and Goodyear FG’s) flat out in 1945 and intended to continue. The replacement was Grumman switching away from F6F to F8F, and General Motors to switch from FM (ie F4F) to F3M (ie. F8F) production.

Re: BSG-75, there were postwar contracts for both F8F’s and F4U’s, figures vary but one set is 293 F8F-2’s, 467 F4U-5’s but most of latter were specialist versions (-5N and -5P). That was pretty small change in both cases compared to even the diminished post-WWII USN fleet, especially given the high rate of wastage in accidents typical at the time. Prop fighter units were mainly filled out with F4U-4’s, almost 2400 of which had been built, compared to well under 1,000 F8F’s from wartime contracts. So when deciding to standardize on one piston fighter alongside jets in late 40’s, the USN went with the numbers and decided to phase out the F8F first. Later during Korea, the Marines got 110 (or so) new AU-1’s produced in 1952, most survivors of which went to the French right after the war, along with 94 F4U-7’s produced in 52-53 for the French.

Joe

Corsair Production

Not 100% certain without checking fully , but I recall that the F4U was in production for 5 years or more after 1945, maybe as far as 1952 (?) Can’t say what quantities but I’m sure that it stayed in production well into the “jet age” ?

Source?

Re: J. Boyle: comparatively few of either F4U’s or F8F’s were built under postwar contracts, ie. were still being produced in the late 40’s, though both were, when it was decided to standardize on the F4U. The big numbers difference was in a/c leftover from wartime contracts, ie. the large number of F4U-4 series a/c. All the ‘straight’ F4U’s used in Korea by USN sdns were -4’s and -4B’s, the only Navy -5’s used in combat were small numbers of -5P’s and -5N’s. One Marine sdn used straight -5’s in combat for a short time, also used -5N’s, and later AU-1’s produced during the Korean War, but also great majority of Marine F4U’s used in Korea were -4’s and -4B’s. The 40’s decision was based on numbers of leftover a/c from WWII: lots more F4U’s than F8F’s.

Joe

Well, I am going strickly by memory and read it from several sources. Yet, I believe the main one I was thinking about. Was in a book about Corsairs by Tilman. Quoting Adm. Nimitz………Which, I unfortunately gave to a friend a few years back. By the way what was your source????

Sorry, you are “mistaken” it was planned to replace Corsair with Bearcats late in the war to battle the increasing threat from Kamikazes. That said, the Corsair would have still operate in a Fighter Bomber or Strike Role.

Source?

Re: J. Boyle: comparatively few of either F4U’s or F8F’s were built under postwar contracts, ie. were still being produced in the late 40’s, though both were, when it was decided to standardize on the F4U. The big numbers difference was in a/c leftover from wartime contracts, ie. the large number of F4U-4 series a/c. All the ‘straight’ F4U’s used in Korea by USN sdns were -4’s and -4B’s, the only Navy -5’s used in combat were small numbers of -5P’s and -5N’s. One Marine sdn used straight -5’s in combat for a short time, also used -5N’s, and later AU-1’s produced during the Korean War, but also great majority of Marine F4U’s used in Korea were -4’s and -4B’s. The 40’s decision was based on numbers of leftover a/c from WWII: lots more F4U’s than F8F’s.

Joe

The F4U was the obvious choice because there were a lot more of them around than F8F’s.
Joe

In part, because they were still in production…

There was never a plan to replace the F4U with the F8F. As for F4U replacing the F8F, the Navy decided in the late ’40’s to standardize on one piston fighter type, in the active units, to operate alongside jets for the rest of the piston era. The F4U was the obvious choice because there were a lot more of them around than F8F’s. The Pacific Fleet had no more F8F units by June 1950 (though the Atlantic fleet still had some) that’s why the a/c didn’t operate in Korea. It was not a decision based on specific mission requirements in Korea.

Joe

Sorry, you are “mistaken” it was planned to replace Corsair with Bearcats late in the war to battle the increasing threat from Kamikazes. That said, the Corsair would have still operate in a Fighter Bomber or Strike Role.

The Corsair inturn were suppose to be replace by Bearcats in the fighter role. Yet, the war ended before that could take place. As for the Korean War the larger Corsair was prefered beacuse it could carry a heavier weapons load…………..

There was never a plan to replace the F4U with the F8F. As for F4U replacing the F8F, the Navy decided in the late ’40’s to standardize on one piston fighter type, in the active units, to operate alongside jets for the rest of the piston era. The F4U was the obvious choice because there were a lot more of them around than F8F’s. The Pacific Fleet had no more F8F units by June 1950 (though the Atlantic fleet still had some) that’s why the a/c didn’t operate in Korea. It was not a decision based on specific mission requirements in Korea.

Joe

The USN decided in late 40’s it preferred the F4U for the remaining prop fighter role alongside jets, and there were actually F4U squadrons which fought in Korea which had converted from F8F’s before the war. VF-113 was an example of that, F8F in late 40’s, transitioned to F4U-4’s in early 1950, saw action with the second USN air group to reach Korea, CVG-11, with the then somewhat standard line up of 2 jet (F9F in that case), 2 F4U and one AD sdns plus specialist version F4U and AD detachments and helo’s. Some F8F’s remained in active Atlantic Fleet units into the Korean War period, though. Maybe if the USN had had no jets at all it would viewed things differently, but then would have been in a bad situation by 1950. F8F’s (like F6F’s) were available to the French earlier because the USN preferred the F4U; though after Korea F4U’s (AU-1’s) became available to the French and they got new-build F4U-7’s too.

Joe

Well, by late 1944 the USN had planned to replace all Hellcats with Corsairs. Of course as time went on and the Kamikaze Threat increased. The Corsair inturn were suppose to be replace by Bearcats in the fighter role. Yet, the war ended before that could take place. As for the Korean War the larger Corsair was prefered beacuse it could carry a heavier weapons load…………..

It certainly would have played a role in Korea if the Panther hadn’t been available…

The USN decided in late 40’s it preferred the F4U for the remaining prop fighter role alongside jets, and there were actually F4U squadrons which fought in Korea which had converted from F8F’s before the war. VF-113 was an example of that, F8F in late 40’s, transitioned to F4U-4’s in early 1950, saw action with the second USN air group to reach Korea, CVG-11, with the then somewhat standard line up of 2 jet (F9F in that case), 2 F4U and one AD sdns plus specialist version F4U and AD detachments and helo’s. Some F8F’s remained in active Atlantic Fleet units into the Korean War period, though. Maybe if the USN had had no jets at all it would viewed things differently, but then would have been in a bad situation by 1950. F8F’s (like F6F’s) were available to the French earlier because the USN preferred the F4U; though after Korea F4U’s (AU-1’s) became available to the French and they got new-build F4U-7’s too.

Joe

Eric Brown said he saw one (flown by Navy Test Pilot Marion Carl) do the shortest and one of the most startling aerobatic display he had ever seen!-he took off, pulled it into an “almost square loop’-and landed directly off it!!

Big pistons….

There is something special about the late model piston engined fighters, lots of power, airfarme at the end of development potential. Air to air it could have been a success, air to ground perhaps not so with the alternatives such as the A-1, F4U etc

By all accounts it was very fast, very strong.
We saw a number of types (the Sea Fury, Corsair, Skyraider… among others) survive well into the jet age.

It certainly would have played a role in Korea if the Panther hadn’t been available…and of course it was used in Thailand and Vietnam by those respective air forces.

I believe the Bearcat had one of the best clinb rates besides being very agile………:D

By all accounts it was very fast, very strong.
We saw a number of types (the Sea Fury, Corsair, Skyraider… among others) survive well into the jet age.

It certainly would have played a role in Korea if the Panther hadn’t been available…and of course it was used in Thailand and Vietnam by those respective air forces.