The Best American Fighter Of WW2...In Theory: Grumman F8F Bearcat

[@JoeFreeman-y2d]

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.

[@stephenmeier4658]

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....

[@1joshjosh1]

😂 wow.

[@briancavanagh7048]

You have been given the opportunity to find a better job! Go for it! Maybe even become your own boss. Good luck.

[@fishjohn014]

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

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

Good luck on the job search.🍀

[@guaporeturns9472]

Jobs are overrated , but still necessary

[@CarlGreisheimer-d3h]

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!

[@mpetersen6]

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.

[@Nafeels]

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.

[@jameswebb4593]

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.

[@Nafeels]

@@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.

[@brovold72]

Pun intended I hope! 👍

[@girthbloodstool339]

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.

[@cammobunker]

I got to see "Rare Bear" at the AIr Races in Reno. The thing was flat AMAZING.

[@paulm749]

Indeed - 500+ mph in a piston-powered/propeller _anything_ is absolutely amazing!

[@YenkoSC67]

Voodoo beat that, 531+ , however, it didn't meet the 'official' criteria for some reason.

[@iskandartaib]

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).

[@MrChainsawAardvark]

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]

I think Armstrong was talking about the F-8 Crusader.

[@damndirtyrandy7721]

@@robertspence831 Incorrect, Armstrong had a fondness for the Bearcat which he had considerable time in.

[@MrChainsawAardvark]

@@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.

[@gort8203]

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.

[@georgeburns7251]

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.

[@kamikazeviking3053]

Mfw radial engines:

[@TobinTwinsHockey]

Agree. It looks nothing like a FW-190

[@EstorilEm]

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.

[@williamsmith7340]

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.

[@rubinthomas8586]

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".

[@nate1511]

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

[@jimsvideos7201]

Great fun as always. Big radial engines are such a fascinating field of engineering, obsolete or not.

[@reallynothingserious1121]

Favorite prop fighter for us tech tree in warthunder. It’s just too good

[@tankdood329]

The 6.3 one is weird but the (now) 4.7 one is god tier

[@garyK.45ACP]

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.

[@CAP198462]

Followed by the F7F Tigercat iirc

[@SEMJW]

'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!

[@briancavanagh7048]

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.

[@ChrisBarclay-k4v]

This was the first model plane I ever built. That was 50 years ago! Great plane,

[@timothyirwin8974]

Not my first but I remember

[@phhdvm]

Do the Tiger Cat next, please!

[@jesperviktorsson8027]

This, the x rated bird

[@simtalkayak]

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.

[@djcjr1x1]

Same here.🤓👍

[@DaveGIS123]

The F8F stood tall because of it's huge propeller.

[@erikc.1087]

0:26 my grandfather was NAA's chief test pilot for that program, among other things.

[@davidmcintyre8145]

The biggest issue this aircraft had and one that continued into the 1950s was the use of the .50 calibre machine gun whereas most countries had switched to a much more cannon armed outfit with the most direct comparison being the Sea Fury which had 4 20 mm cannon as standard

[@EstorilEm]

Eh - in general, US doctrine and belief was that the higher rate of fire (more than) made up for the smaller round size. Another issue was packaging, which was far easier for the .50, as can be seen in the aircraft that used it - for example, this Bearcat likely couldn't fit a single cannon, and even if it could, it would have massively impacted its overall design and thus performance.

[@davidmcintyre8145]

@@EstorilEm Both the Bf-109 and FW 190 carried cannon. There is however no excuse for any of the early jet fighters to be armed with the .50 calibre

[@pencilpauli9442]

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!

[@picklerick8785]

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.

[@djcjr1x1]

I only recently learned Where Wildcats were used for so long on escort carriers relatively successfully. A full update to Bearcats with 2 .50's would've been a massive improvement let alone 4 and assuming more ammo per gun!

[@EstorilEm]

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.

[@Allansybesma]

Thank you for explaining why it never served in the Korean war, but it would have surpassed the corsair if it went there.

[@RemusKingOfRome]

Another Great video.

[@streamofconsciousness5826]

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.

[@csjrogerson2377]

"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.

[@wingshad0w00982]

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.

[@jameslockard6956]

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.😊

[@davidjernigan8161]

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.

[@erikc.1087]

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 KZbin

[@raymondyee2008]

“Heroes Of The Pacific” has a good what if especially over Iwo Jima.

[@MrKurtank]

Really good. Thank you!

[@ekscalybur]

F8F was something I would beeline in Iron Storm, a very old strategy game.

[@peterkordziel7047]

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.

[@iskandartaib]

"And you can have all the Bearcats you want, Mr. Wilson!" 😁

[@timgarrett203]

Definition of “clean lines”!!!

[@1joshjosh1]

It is a beautiful airplane.

[@jet4fun54]

The prime focus of the Bearcat was to counter kamikaze attacks through its incredible climb to altitude specs.

[@282XVL]

Peak Piston. Period. If I was going to buy one and only one WW2 fighter as a joy rider toy, this would be it.

[@joelex7966]

Eric Winkle Brown, the famous British test pilot referred to the Bearcat as the Pinacle of single engine piston fighter development.

[@robertpatrick3350]

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.

[@joelex7966]

@robertpatrick3350 was the sea fury the final evolution of the tempest?

[@JetBirdZ]

Wondering if it had the amazing lifting capability of the Fw190 which could carry a 2000lb + bomb load. Both very compact power designs.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

I believe it's strictly intended as an interceptor. Not a fighter bomber.

[@gort8203]

@@WALTERBROADDUS The FW 190 was also originally intended as a fighter, but like most WWII aircraft it was also employed in ground attack. The F8F was used in the ground attack role in Indochina by France and the Republic of Vietnam. But they couldn't save dien ben phu.

[@NotchFox]

The F8F could carry one 1,600 lb centerline bomb, plus one 1,000 lbs bomb under each wing.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

@gort8203 I know the French use of the aircraft. But it's more of like they didn't have any other choice. I don't think the bearcat is well-suited for the role.

[@gort8203]

@@WALTERBROADDUS The original commenter to whom you responded was not wondering how "well suited" the F8F was for fighter bomber role, he was wondering if it could carry a 2000 lb. bomb load. Your reply to that comment was that the plane was "strictly intended as an interceptor Not a fighter bomber". In the context of the question asked this response implies that it could not carry bombs, which is incorrect.

[@troynov1965]

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?

[@michaelogden5958]

Not a looker (in my opinion), but apparently a great plane.

[@EstorilEm]

Looks beautiful with the gear up - its issue was the prop/engine, which required tall landing gear and a huge rudder for control - both of which kinda kill the aesthetic a bit lol.

[@johnwilliamson2276]

I thought that the A-1 Skyraider was The Best Piston Engine Fighter of WWII. 😳😊

[@jameseast7966]

Not a fighter John, originally designed as an attack ground support. Original USN desidnation was AD, later A1 Skyraider. USAF also used it in Vietnam. SEMPER FI!!

[@ppszthunder]

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

[@jameswebb4593]

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.

[@andrewmetcalfe9898]

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.

[@migmadmarine]

I nominate it's grumman stablemate, the f7f tigercat

[@andrewmetcalfe9898]

@ a twin engine design, if I’m not mistaken.

[@rbr8931]

​@@andrewmetcalfe9898 Yes if we consider twin engine fighters the de havilland hornet would probably be no1

[@robertpatrick3350]

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.

[@CAP198462]

Leeeeeroy Grumman! Were you expecting something else?

[@donaldbadowski6048]

13 Gs would certainly cause the pilot to pass out, even with the G-suit that wasn't in use yet.

[@brucehearn2621]

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.

[@pauldonnelly7949]

I can't help but think the Bearcat was really just a tarted up FW 190, there is an undeniable similarity. Interesting to see which would come out on top, even Stevens I reckon..

[@driftertank]

MAYBE if you're comparing to the Dora. Pretty sure the Bearcat would wipe the floor with an Anton...

[@CarlGreisheimer-d3h]

The Anton used a 14 cylinder radial engine. Grumman used radial engines on most of it’s planes just like the BEARCAT

[@JoeyMills-y3v]

It's interesting they considered 4 x .50 cals adequate for the Pacific theatre, shows how poorly protected Japanese aircraft were compared to western types. Dunno about going up against a late war 190, pilot would make the difference I guess, tho if numbers are to be believed the bearcat could probably break off from combat easier? 190 has heavier armament for sure. Don't know.

[@voivod6871]

Well considering there were already a number of allied aircraft that were at least a match for the FW 190 it would be surprising if the Bearcat didn't come out on top.

[@voivod6871]

Well considering there were already a number of allied aircraft that were at least a match for the FW 190 it would be surprising if the Bearcat didn't come out on top.

[@blarrrggg]

can something that didn't really do anything be considered the best

[@goaway7346]

The XBT2F looks interesting. Can we have a video please?

[@SoloRenegade]

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.).

[@martindice5424]

Love a Bearcat mate. But - the best single engined Allied fighter of WW2? Nope. Not it’s fault. But just nope…

[@DanH-u3f]

Statistically the Hellcat is the greatest WW2 fighter.

[@PaulMcElligott]

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.

[@jonathancraig8247]

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.

[@PaulMcElligott]

@ Wow, KZbin just runneth over today with people who take themselves too seriously.

[@CaptainLumpyDog]

Best American fighter of WWII? Don't you mean the Tigercat 😉

[@sim.frischh9781]

Tigercat is probably the best looking twin-engine fighter of the 1940s. There are some other nice looking ones, but none had the lines and grace of the F7F.

[@CaptainLumpyDog]

@ It was insanely beautiful.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

I love tiger cats as well.

[@alangledhill6454]

Neither aircraft fought in WW2. They just missed it by a month or two.

[@patrickradcliffe3837]

The Bearcat was a compromised design. I would not call it the best piston carrier fighter. It was Grumman trying match the turning perfomance of the A6M and superior to it in speed. The light armament and G limited outer wing panels let it down. To me it was the dead end of carrier piston powered fighters.

[@cyberfutur5000]

It looks like someone who has only ever seen a P-47 was told to build a plane based on an oral description of a FW190 and the blueprints for the F4F wildcat. And it's uglier than all of them. Respect.

[@djcjr1x1]

😂😂😂 Spot on analogy!

[@thomashenshallhydraxis]

The speed of numbers you’re throwing around. Numbers on the pictures is best; and you’re speaking fast with the numbers. It’s hard to see the numbers and see how they matter.

[@conradnelson5283]

Too bad, the bearcat did not get into combat. But we did not want to invade Japan so I guess it worked out.

[@enscroggs]

Hamsters.

[@maxmachac9756]

We all know the best US fighter of ww2 was the P-26

[@christophercook723]

It was the United States not the whole Continent!😢

[@Quasarnova1]

The difference between the R2800-34W and the -30W wasn't that one made a bit more power. The 34W had a single stage, single speed supercharger that was heavily optimized for low altitude, while the 30W had a single stage, two speed supercharger with more balanced performance across most altitudes. The F8F-1 with the 34W was faster than the F8F-2, or any other piston engine fighter, down at sea level but was much less impressive at even medium altitudes. The F8F-2 with the 30W was quite good at all altitudes, but fell a little short of some other late war planes like the F4U-5 and Sea Fury with their more advanced supercharger set ups. Interestingly, the F4U-5 also use an R2800 in the form of the two stage, two speed 32W. With a slight extension to the nose, the Bearcat may have been able to fit the 32W, and achieved some truly incredible performance with it, but piston fighters were on the way out, so Grumman never tried and we'll never know.

[@ReviveHF]

10 years later F-11F Tiger took to the skies and it broke the sound barrier, this plane was a massive improvement to the F-8F Bearcat. The upgraded variant even had BVR radar, AIM-7 Sparrows and J-79 engine that allow it to reach Mach 2, this makes the F-11F Tiger was a better fighter platform than the A-4 Skyhawk, F-8 Crusader and capable of performing fleet defense interceptor role at the meantime. Unfortunately it lacked range and bomb payload, so the US Navy decided to go with the F-8 Crusader and F-4 Phantom. 26 years later, Grumman's flagship product F-14A entered service drawing lessons from the Vietnam War slowly replacing the F-4 Phantom, while the F/A-18A replaced the A-4 Skyhawk and F-8 Crusader.

[@MrDmitriRavenoff]

Your odd life moments always make me laugh.

[@billt6116]

Incorrect Information. ... The grumman hellcat knocked down more fighters than any other in the US Arsenal during World War 2! Specifically designed to beat the "0".

[@darrellid]

The Bearcat, narrated with a heavy dose of PISSED OFF!

[@bobagost3882]

I was working for a former F8 pilot they were loaded on the carriers on there way to the South Pacific when the war ended He said it was rocket fast handling was unreal but you had to land it hot because the wings were so small and it would stall easy He was still pissed off that he didn't get to take it to war and that was around 55 years after the war ended Ya had to smile it was as if it just happened the week before he was a real warrior

[@decibellx2194]

I do find the era of the radial engine, fun and sexy. however, this aircraft had stability problems whenever you asked it to do more than be an airplane, it was a good airplane though.

[@georgeburns7251]

What, French pilots not flying the Bearcats well against the Vietnamese? I’m shocked. Didn’t they keep their white flags from WW2?

[@gregb6469]

This is an AMERICAN plane--describe its dimensions using feet, not meters!

[@brookeshenfield7156]

The algorithm loves hamsters…aloha!

[@sim.frischh9781]

Most modern fighter jets don´t even reach Mach 2, the F-22 tops out at 1.6 and that´s sufficient. Any more speed doesn´t help the tactical or strategic aspect enough to justify the rapidly increasing fuel consumption those higher speeds require. There is also rumors about the "Aurora" hypersonic aircraft said to outspeed the X-15, but i do not know how much of that is actually true.

[@crispy_338]

Speed helps immensely in BVR combat. The faster you can get, the faster you missile will be and the less time the enemy will have to maneuver

[@sim.frischh9781]

@@crispy_338 Missiles are rocket-propelled and can fly much faster than a jet fighter, so the speed of the aircraft firing it is irrelevant. And BVR speed is completely non-issue because you don´t see the enemy anyways, the radar does that for you, modern radar has no issue whether you fly Mach 1.6 or 2.4. The missiles have neither.

[@siubhan2047]

​​@@sim.frischh9781but...isn't the speed of the aircraft added to that of the missile?

[@crispy_338]

@ Everything you’ve just said is incorrect. Incredible really. 1) A missiles speed is equal to the speed of the launch platform (aircraft) plus the base speed of the missile (usually Mach 2.5+) therefore extra speed at launch makes the missile much more deadly. 2) Missiles do have radars. ARH missiles have radars in the nose and activate them in the terminal guidance phase. 3) Speed has nothing to do with radars so idk what you’re even talking about.

[@ljessecusterl]

The F-22 tops out at Mach 2.25. 1.6 is its typical supercruise speed.

[@johnchrysostomon6284]

If the Bearcat was so good why didn't they use it extensively in Korea? They continued to use the Corsair, and they used the Skyraider

[@halonsox]

But then why it wasnt used on Korea as the Corsair did?? 😢

[@bobharrison7693]

These planes were not measured in meters. Use feet and inches!

[@kennethquinnies6023]

Better sooner than never like the lack of better Japanese fighter designs

[@johnchrysostomon6284]

Your reasons make no sense They had the F6F in development but they wanted a different plane because they also had the Tigercat? There's a non-sequitur there.

[@chulian1819]

*best short range fighter

[@MrTunetracker]

The Bearcat didn't see action in WWII.

[@oxcart4172]

Why do u call more powerful engines "stronger?"

[@CarlGreisheimer-d3h]

And who built the Engine for the FW190……………..BMW!!!

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

Not all of them.

[@georgeburns7251]

So, that explains why Germany ran out of oil.

[@JackManiacky]

​@@georgeburns7251😅

[@MaryManey-hv5bh]

Much like the B 36and so many others, a complete waste of money, effort, and time. It was obsolete before it was complete. Would have v beeen fantastic a year or so eralier. But too late. The War was already over before it even hit production. Had it hit production even a year earlier, it would have made a significant difference, but as it was, it served largely as a last hurrah for the designers.

[@ohasis8331]

Absolutely shocking narration voice.

[@MarkCooper-z4k]

The X-15 was not an airplane. And it's obvious to me that you know nothing whatsoever about aircraft. The X-15 was essentially a piloted missile/rocket. Do you see any air intakes on the X-15? No. It carried its own oxidizer. It had to be carried a loft on a "mother ship" as it was not able to takeoff under its own power. All the other planes mentioned here are able to take off and land under their own power because they breathe air. You could not be less informed. Stop making KZbin videos.

[@JackManiacky]

: a powered heavier-than-air aircraft with fixed wings from which it derives most of its lift Also, your mother would be dissapointed in you if she saw your post.

[@MarkCooper-z4k]

I can tell you right off the bat that my mother is smarter than you.

[@MsKatjie]

ai voice sucks, Bro. Good content, in my humble opinion. Cheers.

[@georgeburns7251]

Don’t think it is AI.