Clash of the Navy Warbirds: Bearcat vs. Corsair; who wins?

Question

Warbird fans ought to love this one. Two U.S. Navy World War II carrier-based fighters square off over the blue Pacific.

The F4U Corsair was a Marine Corps favorite, one of the fastest fighters of the era. It's gull wing makes it distinctive in appearance.

The F8F Bearcat didn't quite make it into combat. It was on its way aboard USS Langley when V-J Day came. The Bear was the latest of a trio of single-engine Grumman fighters to go aboard carriers in World War II.

So, pilots--don your parachutes and "Mae West" life vests. Man your planes, start your engines, and get ready to launch.

In this corner, flying off USS Intrepid, the F4U. In this corner, flying off USS Lexington, the F8F. May the best pilot and plane win.

Who might that be?

While I'm not making a judgment or trying to sway anyone's answer, I would caution folks not to underrate or underestimate the F8F.

The fighters were not quite contemporary. The Bearcat was newer. The two fighters used more or less the same engine, with the version in the Bear being somewhat more powerful. F8F was smaller, a bit quicker in roll rate, and could outclimb the F4U.

Pilot ability would be a huge factor, but given pilots of equal ability, who has the edge?

One of the difficulties in comparing warbirds is that they have differing track records--often as a result of timing in the production of the designs.

Since the Bearcat was a late design it was not produced in the numbers the Corsair was, nor did it have the advantage of extensive combat experience to improve the design--as did the earlier Hellcat, Wildcat and the Corsair itself.

The F-106 was a superb supersonic interceptor, built in the late 1950's, following the F-102 which was actually an interim design. Fighter pilots have told me the F-106 could beat the F-4 Phantom in a dogfight every time, due to its superior speed, light wing loading and maneuverability. But the F-4 was the more successful fighter.

Why? Look at the numbers. Fewer than 300 F-106's and a very short production life. Thousands of F-4s.

Loving the answers so far. Granny, a broom might be better than a boom.

By the way, the Bearcat did see combat in the French Indochina war, first as part of the French forces (along with the Corsair) and it later found its way into the Viet Nam Air Force (VNAF).

Several F8Fs were on static display at South Vietnamese bases when I was in Vietnam a few years later.

It was a pretty classy-looking fighter, a lot smaller than one might think. I don't think I've ever seen one flying.

Although the temptation was very strong to give the best answer to Granny, I have to take the answer that best addressed my question.

I do think many of the answers tended to short-change the Bearcat, whose greatest sin was its late entry onto the scene.

Note that in my question I have appropriately assigned each of these fighters to a World War II Essex-class carrier that is still in existence today. You can tour both of them.

USS Lexington is a museum ship in Corpus Christi, Texas. USS Intrepid is a museum ship in New York City.

If you have never been on an aircraft carrier these ships are an incredible education. If you have never been on a World War II carrier, but have spent time on a post-war Super Carrier, you also stand to be educated.

I recommend spending a couple of bucks to tour one of these ships. Help preserve them.

There are a few Corsairs around and some Bearcats as well. Let's remember these machines and the men who flew them!

Answer 1

It would depend on which model of the Corsair you are talking about. The F4U-1, -1A, -1D, -4, -5, AU-1 or the French F4U-7?

I am going to assume the F4U-4B and the F8F-2. Both have 4 x 20mm cannons as armament.

The Corsair was faster, but the Bearcat was more maneuverable, had a faster climb rate and has a higher G-force rating - all essential to dogfighting. BEARCAT FOR DOGFIGHTS

The Corsair was a better ground attack/close air support aircraft (but no slouch as a dogfighter) which is why the marines had it in Korea. CORSAIR FOR GROUND ATTACK

As always, no matter what aircraft you have, it is dependent on the skill of the pilot.

Answer 2

Another good one here Warren.

Lets see..the engine was the same Pratt and Whitney Double Wasp style.

The Bearcat had better rate of climb and maneuverablity than the Corsair plus it had the 360 degree all around canopy (taken from the FW 190 design) which gave pilots a huge advantage over non rear looking canopies. The Bearcat had 4 .50 cal machine guns and a sizeable rocket/bomb capacity.

The Corsair, while a tad bit faster than the Bearcat (initial model) had several advantages over the Bear. Instead of 4 M2's, it had 6. While two might seem like a lot more firepower, it is surely enough to provide plenty of knockdown power. The Corsair had a higher ceiling to work with (41k vs. 38k for the Bearcat) and its well known that the plane that can go higher and get the height advantage on its opponent will normally win. The Corsairs wings were in no danger of snapping off in dives (like the Bearcats) and the Corsair was a proven bird, time and again. Pilots liked her and she flew well. The Bearcat arrived to late to gain many pilot's trust and was not combat proven like the Corsair.

My vote...Corsair.
More firepower, higher ceiling to work and proven in combat so the pilot's knew what she could do.

Answer 3

I'd give it to the Corsair. Your scenario depends too much upon paper statistics in an unproven fighter. The Corsair had been in operation for three (in variant forms) years with thousands of flights, landings, and kills. The Bearcat: Nought.

Thus, it becomes difficult to make a true comparison. After all, the Zero was arguably "better" than the Wildcat, but Wildcat pilots, and for that matter, Warhawk pilots, out flew and out fought the Zero pilots.

In a pure statistical comparison:
Speed: Corsair: 446; Bearcat: 434 MPH.
Ceiling: Corsair: 41,500; Bearcat: 39,000
Climb Rate: Corsair: 4,170 Fpm Bearcat: 4,570 Fpm
Weapons: Corsair: 6 .50 cal.( or 4 20mm); Bearcat: 4 .50 cal.
Range: Both about 1,100 miles.

Thus, the Bearcat got high marks for maneuverability because it was lighter and could climb faster, but the Corsair could fly higher and could arguably get the drop were it in the correct position. The Zero versus the Wilcat and P-40 found the similar comparison, but there are a lot of dead zero pilots who probably thought their plane was better than the older plane models.

The F4U was a tiny bit faster, but not appreciably so. It could take more punishment than its lighter brother Bearcat. On the offense, it's six machine guns or 4 cannons made it 50 percent more powerful than the Bearcat's armament.

So, not that I am qualified to really give an opinion as a pilot, which I am not, as I read material, I opt to vote for the Corsair.
Regards

Answer 4

Navy Bearcat

Answer 5

sounds like oda315 did his homework. got to say the corsair here. like the F8F but the altitude is a very important advantage in aerial combat. higher means better.

Answer 6

a hard choice between Pappy Boyington's Baa Black sheep and the Blue Angels,,

I say the F4U Corsair ,,

Answer 7

Corsair hands down. Plus the gull wings were awesome to look at :)

Answer 8

Corsair. It's aerodynamics and shear maneuvers are more superior.

Answer 9

Corsair, of course.

Answer 10

My boom could beat both of those planes! hee hee