107 THE GRUMMAN FF BEARCATThe Gru seeneetcual FSF Bearcat ae An FSF] USS. Tarawa (CV-40) during VF-2 This is the first real fighter I've flown! Attributed to a combat experienced Navy fighter pilot jet his initial flight in a Grumman XF8F-1 Bearcat these words are typical of the enthusiastic response to the Navy's newest Grumman fighter in the late stages ‘of the Second World War. Formal evaluations and performance figures generally support this reaction. While the Bearcat was just a little too late 10 demon: strate in combat that it measured up to the promise of these opinions and figures, there is little evidence to in that it would not have done so. The story of the Bearcat began in the summer of 1943. Grumman's production lines were turning out ge quantities of F6F-3 Hellcats; these saw their first combat a n August. Design engineering for the large. d, twin engine XF7F-1 was essentially complete, with construction of the initial airplanes well along. The Hellcats represented a nsiderable improvement over the earlier Grumman Wildcats, which were still the only fighters on U.S. Navy carriers in combat. And the new F7F promised much needed further improvements in range, firepower and speed. ‘These two types were respectively repre- sentative of those going into action and being develo~ ped for the Navy at that time, with some emphasis on high altitude fighters with supercharging Against this background, and the characteristics of Japanese aircraft with their extremely clean aerodynamic design, minimum weight, and resultant high speed and manoeuvrability, Grumman engineers. and desi der Chief Engineer William Sct wendler worked up their design $8 to fill a major gap in the current and future U.S. carrier type fighters 2 minimum weight interceptor, with maximum pe mance in the low and medium altitude ranges. ‘The goal was a fighter similar in size to the Wildcat, but aving superior speed, rate of climb and manoeuvring capability in the low/medium altitude range to any of the carrier fighters in service or under development to provide the same pilot protection as that in the Hellcat, but the armament was reduced to four -50 cal. guns, these being considered adequat to destroy the less rugged and less protected Japane um carry over of Hellcat desi ic consider with retention of features and correction of any deficiencies To provide minimum drag, heavier skins with flush rivets ard spot welding were used in the new design. It was desire Read rier atk ‘ramme o: Ed Wischnowski) One unusual feature was the incorporation of Safety Wing Tips. Based on experience with other aircraft, it was felt that provision of a “weak” point in the wing or tail structure would insure that the structure would fail at the desired point if the airplane was inadvertantly averstressed. On the new design, this was applied to the outboard portion of the wings. a chordwise sectio pcorporated just outboard of the centre aileron hinge which would fail at the 9g design load; with reduced span the wing root siructure would carry much higher g-loads. Enough aileron would remain to give safe roll control. This Provision also allowed some reduction in structural weight since the inboard wing section wasn't designed 9 carry the design margin of loads that would have been necessary with normal wing desi All possible improvements in aerodynamic design were incorporated such as in powerplant cowling and cooling and leading edge air intakes, but the NACA 230 series airfoil used on the F6F was con: tis main ncorpe ‘ Landing gear retraction of the wing mounted gears was inboard. A bubble canopy ied. As proposed to the Bureau of Acro- nautics, design 58 was intended as a medium altitude fighter-interceptor, with rate of climb and rate of roll twice that of the Hellcat, and an increase of some 50 m.p.h. in maximum speed. It was intended to use the newly designed P & W “E™ series R-2800 engine Among Navy fighter pilots who had flown the Boeing F4B and Grumman F2F/F3F biplane fight ¢ thirties and who now had responsible positic wAer, the new design found a most receptive response, With a minimum of changes (but con- Note absence of dorsal fin in this fly XPBF-1 to: via LCDR. B. Reams)siderable discussion Grumman), rm the programme. On 27th November a letter of int along with the priority © over the fee to nt was be allowed ached to go ahead with nt was signed, tificate necessary to get the prototypes of a new airplane built under wartime ontrols, Contract terms called for Grumman to build two prototypes, the first with a P & W R-2800-22 C” series, two speed supercharger engine and the second with the new “E” series engine with variable speed supercharger. A complete airplane mockup was not required, only power plant installation and cockpit section mockups being called out. ‘The first airplane was to be flown in eight months, the second two months later. Following the F7F-I, the new fighter prototypes were designated XF8F-1. Design proceeded rapidly, with the cockpit mockup inspected in January, 1944: the power plant installation fol lowing in March, using the -22 engine. No major changes were ordered; design and construction went ahead on schedule. During April it was decided to install -22 engines in both prototypes due to non- availability of the “E” engine. By late June the first irplane was well along and the contract had bee modified to add twenty-three additional XFS! ircraft plus tooling for a production rate of airplanes a month. With the first XFSF-1 schedu for flight in August, and the second in October, the first of the additional XF8F-1's was scheduled for completion in December, BuNo’s assigned at this time were 90437-90461, with the last wo going 10 the two originally-ordered prototypes. One of the twenty-three additional aircraft was to have the “E engine (by this time designated the R-2800-30W) installed when it became available, planned for March 1945. The -22 engines to be used in the other twenty four aircraft also. received the W suffix, since water injection provisions were incorpor. In August the new Grumman fighter was rolled out of the experimental shop and on ist August, Bob Hall, no stranger to first flights in Grumman fighters, took BuNo 90460 up for the XFSF-1's first flight. Initial reactions were enthusiastic; 1 airplane's performance was impressive, and it see to have few major problems, although it was not without its share of the usual variety of lesser develc ment problems. Engineering and test effort was pushed to solve these problems, including landing gear difficulties and insufficient longitudinal stabi The latter resulted in the addition of one foot to the span of the horizontal tail. With flight results showing that the F8F would give the outstanding performance which had been its designer's goal, some changes were: initiated 10 improve its overall effectiveness, The capacity of the internal fuel tank, which was actually 162 gal ier than the 150 gallons specified, was to be raised to 175 gallons since space in the tank ar ef the cockpit was available. deliv 2 useful extension in combat radius over th inal 150 gallon figure. Store carrying provisions were also ine @ total of two 1,000 pound bombs plus four 250 pound bombs on wing stations between the landing gear well and the wing fold. These changes were made with minimum weight additions, and minimum reduction of interceptor performance The XF8F-1 made its debut in October—at the Joint Fighter Conference held at the Naval Air Test Centre, Patuxent River, Maryland. While it was there, initial Navy evaluation flights were also made including brief gun firing trials. While the single XF8F-1 was not available for unlimited flying by the many military test and service pilots or the contractor test pilots participating, it was flown by a limited number of military pilots. It was quite an outing for the only test airplane in flight status, less than two months after its first fight! The results of both the Conference pilot's evaluations and the Navy eval tion were universally a pat on the back for the Grumman designers and also for the Navy officers who had pushed for adoption of Grumman's pro- posed lighter interceptor design in contrast to the other larger, heavier, long range fighters being developed concurrently for BuAer. Even though only a minimum number of Conference pilots flew the FBF, it received the highest percentage of votes as the best all around fighter below 25,000 feet, and, by a wide margin, as potentially the best carrier fighter (with modifications for carrier operations allowed for the land based types). Only its compact Cockpit, lack of lateral trim and of longitudinal trim capability in landing and its directional stability and FSF-I cockpit, she and imstrume facontrol characteristics recel wments, though a question was ihe adequacy of its four x-50 The Navy evaluation was a ed significant adverse aircraft were requested by the Navy ised regarding change was subsequently dropped, in large part due ment to limitations on aft movement of the c.g, A Ham it more critical, and Standard Superhydromatic propeller was. tested many other detailed items were brought up the first XF8F-1, and while generally satisfacto correction. Action on many of these was already the Aeroproducts prop was ordered for producti under way, including the directional characteristics aircraft since there was some question concern and lateral trim. Erratic airspeed system operation, availability of the Hamilon-Standard. Most im: and need for increased speed of landing gear operation poriant_ was the signing of a contract for 2,000 and increased airspeed for its operation were othet production FSF-I's, with the twenty-three pre- items on which corrective action was considered production airplanes and tooling work initiated in June necessary. In November, the second prototype was transferred to the new contract Production at the r flown and the dorsal fin added to the F&F con- of 100/month was envisaged by June 1945, with F6F figuration, Provisions for six guns in production production completely supplanted by January 1946, December 2nd saw Grumman. test pilot Pat Gallo make the first flight of BuNo 9046/. Initial eld arrested landings at Philadelphia 1 transfer of BuNo 90460 to NACA Langley for full scale tunnel tests followed. The first of the new year saw the first pilot line “production” XFSF-1 completed: th second followed before the end of January.’ The third, BuNo 90439, rolled out in February, the last Bearcat built in the experimental shop. BuNo 90440, the first pilot line airplane off the assembly line reached flight status during the same month During January initial flight checks were made oF range characteristics, using BuNo 90461; the results proved very disappointing. Investigation showed that in auto-lean, at the low powers required for long range cruise, the mixture was affected by the idle needle, resulting n excessively rich mixture, P & W engineers came up with a manual leanin control, which proved to be a. solut spark plug fouling resulted, requiring further co \ reetive action. ‘uring this ‘same period, “engine with the first pilot line airplane—a foretaste of things to come, Mi ing. with nwhile BuAer was neg: Eastern Aircraft Division of General Motors to build the Bearcat in liew of their own XF2M-I design since the Bearcat could operate from the escort carriers and offered far superior performance to that of Eastern’s R-1820 powered de: A letter of @ intent for 1,876 Eastern built Bearcats designated F3IM-1 was ‘signed on February Sth: these were to be powered by R-2800-34WA or -40 engines, im 34W which was replacing proved versions of 22W iin all production FSF's, Flight test activities during this period included initial flights with the full range of external stores to be carried by the Bearcat and the propeller vibratory stress. survey conducied at Grumman by Acroproducts engineers. l BuNo 9046/ with a -34W installed, stresses were all found to be below known fatigue stre and the installation was approved for producti ried included such loads as 2’ II rockets or alternatively two Mk. I gun packages on the wing racks of BuNo 90438. Replace ment of the four -SO guns by 20 mm, cannon ~ also being studied ed another milestone in the in fact one of the most signi- nes for any carrier aircraft: the first shipboard operations. With 90439 again doing the honours, two Navy pilots from NAAS Mustin Field, Philadelphia, LCDR's Bottomley and Elder made a | of nine arrested landings and deck takeoffs on the U.S-S. Charger (CVE-30). The results were extremely factory. This airplane was then used to complete the catapulting and arrestment portion of Board of1 operating World War Il BuA tice: BuNo 9046) wa igned to NACA Lang early M Mar aluation of the FSF’s flying qualities. A ment T also 90446 was a » NATC for 7 . the first rf 00 additional IFSF-1"s b J ; ‘ Slate in Beare 4 é J sed for g ig, rok ! i hee M. Minor changes he era. 44 started Acoe « NATC Flight Test Div on ito a le 9044, to Service Test 1 erated three Si T 90447 joining a Ai weeks of flying at F od « p. W d 4 8 c in J . c ; . A = Al jon ¢ cre ed to. VE i‘ ined FF tt NATC ‘ on Beal " ¢ 0's, BuN 6 E de e E T NATE x i Se= Ears K omacce >: Tonk 2. rail a. * — =At Flight Test, the bobweight n the elevator control was found to give good manoeuvring force characteristics ever tests with the 150 gallon tank installed showed that the directional stability and control characteristics de ed scriously when carrying the tank; especially at high speeds where the resultant poor directional acteristics reduced the effectiveness of the airplane as a gun platform. Grumman was requested to take immediate action to solve this problem. Development of both pod and internal camera installations was underway; and two Bearcats, $4812 and 94819, had been equipped with radar nacelles suspended from the starboard wing bomb rack as prototypes for AN/APS-19 radar equipped FSF-IN night fighters. One Bearcat was assigned 10 NOTS Inyokern in July for rocket firing tests While the developm proceeding relatively sm ga mi deexcept and test programmes were othly during July, VF-19 problem—though ‘training or a brief period. The problem g out, both intermittently and tcly, Fortunately all of the dead involved eng in five cases tick landings pm the latter were corn pleted without damage. Intermittent cutting-out in cru nt duc to lean mixture conditions was a common occurence; use of auto-rich or alternate air usually corrected the condition, take-off was attributed at least in part to in: procedures for warm-up and run-up pr ake-off More scrious cases of intermittent cutting-out could not be explained in most cases, but the complete cut-outs were traced to diaphri id seal leakage problems in the fuel feed valve units. All VF-19 A pilot of VF-20A poses the aircraft af the C:0., LCDR. Caldwe USN). Ri BuNoP4873 ut NALTC. in “ia jeuate stability when the’ comin (Phot USN) Bearcats were grounded for checks for this completed and a short period while akage were completed. With checks nore detailed instructions on engine operations issued, training proceeded, In mid-July, one F&F was lost on each of two successive days from other causes, but carquals on board the Tal Bay (CVE-89) some 10 days later were without serious difficulties Only one case of an engine cutting-out inter mittently was noted in 386 carrier landings and take-offs. By the end of considered ready for de WesPac aboard the Langley on 2nd August. The extra Bearcats used by VIF-19 during tr c then assigned to the next two FSF-I 5 San Diego based VE July ment the squadron was and departed for uadrons. 18 sent five pilots up to Santa Rosa; these pilots ferried five Bearcats back on August 9th. The next day VF-18 received its initia Bearcats, As VF-I ward, two of the test programmes suffered a setback from landing crashes 90401 was damaged at Langley Field bringing the NACA programme to a halt, and 90442 terminated ted Service test period at NATC at the f point, NACA had mented many of the flying quali ported by NATC, and had recomme enlarged vertical tail—with an increased height around 16 inches to correct the instability problem h external tanks. W nfirmed a ded je these particular po the overall programme came to an unplan halt, two mew phases were beginning at NATC evalu ies changes due to the radar IN, using BuNo 92879 and the I test project using BuNo 90446, for Wiltiam T. Larkins in June 1947. (Photo: WAmother view of VE:204's Garrier trials “aboard the Tarawa; 95356 inches above the fight deck. (Photo: Ed Wischnowski) In mid-August, the Second World War ended, VF-19 had not yet reached combat so the true worth of the F&F would never be known in the War con- ditions for which it was designed, and for which it promised such superior combat performance. With the end of the war the F3M-1 contract was termi- nated and all but 770 airplanes were cancelled (twenty-three “pilot line” and 747 under the first Grumman production contract). Production rates were cut back: in August only twenty were delivered as compared (0 56 in July, subsequent months of 1945 Were to average around fifteen per month, Signficantly, a larger number of F8F's remained on order afiet the V-J cutbacks than of any other Navy fighter. With the F8F established in the Navy"s postwar Programme, test activities and squadron operations continued. In early September, the second accelerated service test airplane (BuNo 90447) reached 453 hours the Accelerated Service Trials. Within new phase of accelerated service tests began, using the 1S1st production airplane (BuNo 94879) with all up to date changes incorporated. The report of the basic Accelerated Service Trials reflected the general enthusiasm for the Bearcat as a fighter/interceptor. It noted many items on which corrective action had been, or was being taken, and singled out the exhaust and hydraulic systems as the only completely unsatisfactory systems in the airplane. In fact it was noted that the Standard station markings carn comersion to an FYF-1D, assigned i by MuNo,9044 Naval Air Dev rt Centre, Johnsvilie, Pa. (Pnoto: Ed Wischnowski) The F8F-1 of CAG 5 banks away in a climbing turn, (Photo: U'S.N./National Archive emergency landing gear extension system had been used regularly due to hydraulic system failures, and that the emergency sysiem was 100%, reliable! While Service Test began the new tests with 94579, Flight Test was assigned F&F-1C BuNo 94803, w its four 20 mn. cannon installed, to check the effects ‘of the changes on performance ‘and flying qualities Flight Test had by then concluded a series 0 ests with Napalm bomb fins attached to the rear of the centreline-mounted 150 gallon tank, and also with the tank turned around backwards to determine the extent of improvement in directional characteristics with these configuration changes. The former was considered to give a useful improvement, but a much more adequate fix was still considered essential On the west coast, squadrons continued training, the two CVG-18 squadrons getting ready to go aboard the Ranger (CV-4) and go through the Panama Canal to their new Station on the east coast. C¥G-19 was to return to the west coast and be based at NAS Alameda. During the remainder of 1545, NATC continued with the various trials programmes and squadron training and operation: in both CVG-18 and -19. All activities were hampered by the rapid turnover in personnel as wartime pilots and ground personnel returned to civilian life. Grumman's production settled at around 13 per month, while their engineers continued to devise changes as problems arose in service and test fying The major efforts were directed toward correcting the direction stability problem, and finally getting the R-2800-30W “E™ engine into the Bearcat. BuNo 94873 was assigned to receive the enlarged vertical tail, It was 12 inches higher, rather than 16 inches as recommended by NACA, since a further increase would have dictated major aft fuselage redesign to carry the higher loads. The problem of obtaining satisfactory overall directional characteristics with the I proved to be a major one and it was not until at the final configuration was to be agreed upon. December brought the beginning of one of the major problems in the Beareat's service life safety Wing tips came under serious review ‘as a result of a fatal ident. It was concluded that one wing tip came off in a very low altitude high speed pull-out, and the aircraft rolled and crashed before the pilot could recover. The operation of the safety wing tips had been demonstrated satisfactorily by rumman, and adequate control with one tip gone was possible; but the conditions of the accident were beyond any demonstration point, Grumman and vy engineers initiated a thorough investigation of the wing tips. The tempo of production and service operations both increased significantly in 1946—production was to average nearly 30 per month throughout the year, while four new squadrons began converting 16 the Bearcat early in the year. From April on, about one:F-1B B NATC A cluding umbe { been picked for A civilian Bea e “Gulla1948, being followed off the line by the The pumber of squadrons equipped with F8F-1/-1B's remained fairly constant, taking one last total of 24 (some of which also had -2's) li year, before ig down in early 1949. Squ were again renumbered on Ist September 1948 1949 kaw the FRF-1"s begin their second career in the Navy. This included assignment as dr rol airplanes, and to advanced training unit r bases. The Naval Air Development Centre was given the job of developing a standard dr figuration, using XF8F-1 BuNo totype. This modifi outboard wing gu equipment plus ad antennae n included jon of the drone control jonal radio equ i ballast added tot offset the weight of equi partment aft of the cockpit, Afte the prototype was evaluated in t VX-2 and fou adio con at NADC pical operations bi J to be quite satisfactory, That year iso saw the end of the safety wing tips; by incorpora tion of a service change, the break section was elimi nated, being brought up to the same as the rest of the wing With the jet fig! number of Bear evel of strength iron. service, the rs entering squ equipped squadrons decrease rapidly (both -1 and -2) during 1949, and when K n in the summer of 1950, the FSF's were not considered to meet the Navy's mission requirements in these operations, since the Bearcat the heavy ordnance loads of the ground attack missions. the Bearcat’s third finally began. Ironically, it was to be in th which received only minor consideration du its design, and in which the Navy considered it superfluous for Korean operations ack The United States had decided to come ta France's aid in Indo-China, by supplying combat aircraft comb With direct Chinese intervention a definite threat, ground attack aircraft of many types were supplied FRF-1 and -IB Bearcats were supplied to the French Expiditionary Air Force, initially equipping two squadrons. Additional Bearcats followed and they Played a major réle in supporting the ground f against the Viet Minh. They were particularly effective operating from the fortified camps and giving very close infantry support only short nees. from these camps. Some carried cameras in fuselag centreline pods to operate as photo-reconnaissance aircr Despite this air support, Dien Bien Ph fell at last, and when the Geneva agreement was ned the French forces withdre: turned over to South Vietna ntry’s Sith Fighter Squadron jonal F8F-1 and -IIB Bearcats were furnished to Thailand when the U.S. Military Air Advisory Group arrived there 10 assist in strengthening the Royal Thai Air Force. With this transfer, the re w and some surviving maining Bearcats were being phased out of US. Navy operati By July of 1955 the last un reserve bases, had turned in their F8P-1’s and a ye later all were stricken from the Navy inventory. In Thailand they were to continue operating into the early sixties, and at home at least one civilian «1 took on the flashy civilian colours carried by a far larger number of -2°s The Bearcats are not yet gone and they will surely not be forgotten, particularly w them, (Photo: US.NIN: \ »Sean. Member fears FER rier, 940 vase a, Namie shee tie bone TOR WP-189. 52.19) FAF-1, e of Vietnam Air Force Bien Bien P DIMENSIONS AND SPECI Generel: Span ( . (lolded) 23-25 27S fe. Hevght (¢ail wheel on ground, prow bla ere. Wing: Area 244 sq.ft. Root Chord 115-9 in. Tip Chord {6.im, ind ef tip) 415 in, mela 55° Root Section NACA 23018 3009, Sloce ft rons with apring tabs and trim area 15 eq. ft. Dive recovery flaps, area 138 4a. Horizontal Toil: Span 1875 (c. Area 82°27 39. ft. El including trim tabs 1843 1g. ft. Tall incidence 0S Area 177 sq. ft. Rudder ares 67 19. fe Fin ofises. | 5° leading edge laf. Engine: P BW R-2B00-34W Combat Power (w 2400 h.9./2:800 rpm. 1,000 fe Miliary, 2.100" hep. 2.800 r-pren./S.L.-3.400 fe. “2.700 h.p. [2.800 +.p-m./9.500— 16,600 fe Asropreduets ‘Propelier, 4 blade, dhamat 12'fe Pi. ok Capacities: Fost, internal tank 183 gal centreline 180 gal. external wing 2 100 gal Weaver 16 gal Weights: Empey 7.070 tbs. Grows, Fighter, Full inc fuel 9.304 Ibe. Gross, figheer, conc ink 10.39 Gross, 2 1,000 Ib. bombs, cemen T2447 ibe Perfermanea: Vim Photo: David W. Menard) ft 27 af VF-19 moses over after inte the barrier ring’ the thremday operctions d the Corregsde (cvesn. (Photo; U.S.N_/National Archives) Fait SQUADRON ALLOCATION Squn, Numbarn oak Wes, 1048 18 mph Su nding condition, fighter grost weight, 66 Concract | Dave (i ase Delivery | Quant | aires 1943 avin PBF. June 144 Feb. va (Contract ao | (Contrace _7aai46 | A williams | Golthawh « 7 Tries Preduiion te fessor SE SS a ae mos eaters ge. tare feces he sence matey Seale fie nant pee arto ma . exe copyright Protte Pubicatons Limited. Coburg House Beasnee E