Grumman Bearcat inspired by FW-190?

[stepwilk]

I'm working on a cover story on the F8F Bearcat for the American magazine Aviation History, and I have a problem.

The common legend has long been that the Bearcat was designed as a direct result of a couple of Grumman pilots flying a captured Focke-Wulf FW-190 that the RAE had, and being so "inspired" by what seemed to them a simple, lightweight, high-horsepower fighter--the smallest-airframe/biggest-engine concept--that they rushed right back to Bethpage and urged the building of what would become the Bearcat.

I don't believe it, partly because I don't think that's the way fighters get developed and partly because I have at least some evidence showing that LeRoy Grumman outlined literally all of the basic parameters of the Grumman design G58, which would become the F8F, in a memo to Chief Engineer William Schwendler on 28 July 1943, and no Grumman pilot ever so much as saw an FW-190 until September of that year.

Problem is, Grumman test pilot Corky Meyer, in his book "Bearcat," recounts that legend as truth. It's hard to disbelieve a guy that close to the program--he flew the Bearcat throughout the test program--but for the fact that he was a 24-year-old test pilot who'd been with the company for six months at the time of the supposed FW-190 inspiration (he was not one of the two pilots who went to England to fly it) and I can imagine that he might have been taken in by company gossip as much as anybody without real access to what top management was doing, and that he later helped to perpetuate the myth as truth.

Can anybody offer any evidence one way or the other as to what the real story is? If you have serious references or expertise, I'll be happy to credit you in my story.

[treadigraph]

In Corky Meyer's "Flight Journal" (page 144 - Clipping the Bearcat's Wings) he says that LeRoy Grumman, Bud Gillies and Bob Hall went to England in early 1943 to try out axis aircraft and were fascinated by the Fw190 and Hall/Gillies preferred it to the Hellcat... Probably the same article as you are looking at already Stephan. Surely that must be authoritative?

Might be worth looking out Stephen Grey's article on the Bearcat which appeared in Fighter Log and also Pilot - I'm copying this thread to a member of TFC who might be able to forward you a copy.

Happy Christmas!

Treadders

PS Putnam "Grumman Aircraft since 1929" says Roy Grumman sent Bill Schwendler a confidential memo on 28/7/43 outlining the Bearcat concept - no mention of the Fw190.

[stepwilk]

"Surely that must be authoritative?"

You'd be amazed, I've found as even a minimal researcher, the things that you'd _think_ would be authoritative ("Well, the guy worked for the company...") that turn out 50 years later to be the product of misunderstanding, faulty memory, gossip and unintentional exaggeration.

It's one of the reasons Wikipedia, for example, _can_ in many cases be useful but in many other cases is simply a now-hugely effective way of perpetuating urban legends in all sorts of fields: people who don't themselves know a great deal about the subject at hand post the information that they honestly feel is accurate, because they've heard it time and time again over the years, and as long as they have a reference they can cite (which seems to be Wiki's prime, and sole, requirement), it's accepted.

The Encyclopedia Britannica used experts, authorities, primary sources to write their articles; Wiki uses well-meaning amateurs. Big mistake, I think.

And yes, that memo from Roy Grumman to Bill Schwendler is exactly the one I referred to in my original post. It stipulated the F8F's parameters, and nobody from Grumman had yet to fly a Focke-Wulf. And Meyer is wrong about when the Grumman team went to England; it was September 1943.

[treadigraph]

You'd be amazed,

I usually am! Prior to reading "Flight Journal" (last week) I'd always understood that the Roy Grumman concept was to simply nail as small an airframe as they could on to the backside of an R2800, to deliver a lightweight, hard charging fighter; never any mention of the Fw190. Did they ever succeed! I'm sure the gist of that appeared in Stephen Grey's article...

Incidently, is Corky still with us?

[stepwilk]

Yes, Corky's apparently down in Florida. I have his phone number and plan to call him next week. Will I rely on what he says about the Focke-Wulf? Nope.

And yes, I do have his "Flight Journal" article.

[Noyade]

The common legend has long been that the Bearcat was designed as a direct result of a couple of Grumman pilots flying a captured Focke-Wulf FW-190Grumman actually received the Focke Wulf Fw 190?

http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/5049/bearcat.jpg (http://img42.imageshack.us/i/bearcat.jpg/)

[Load Toad]

I read that the design from the F8 was modified after the FW190 was tested, also something about reducing the weight to get better performance as well (manual folding wings, less armament).
But with a lot of stuff read on t'internet...

[Good Vibs]

I would think that once Grumman saw what the Germans & Japanese were putting up in the sky their realized that bigger was not necessary better.
What about improving the Wildcat (smaller than the Hellcat)with a new more powerful engine (R2800)...therefore the result was the Bearcat.
All manufactures have their own ideas and also look at the competition to get other, perhaps better, ideas.

[stepwilk]

"Grumman actually received the Focke Wulf Fw 190?"

No. Absolutely not, that clip you show is totally bogus. Two Grumman pilots flew a captured -190 at the RAE in 1943, and again at Pax River in 1944. There was never a Focke-Wulf at Bethpage.

[Load Toad]

I think I was reading this: Grumman F8F Bearcat - History, Specifications and Pictures - Military Aircraft (http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=90)

[stepwilk]

Wow. That piece is full of errors.

[Mechta]

Could it be that the Grumman designers had already read the RAE test pilot's reports on the FW190 when they put together the Bearcat proposal, and the Grumman pilots flight in the FW190 a couple of months later were just a confirmation of what they, or their bosses, had already read?

The RAE FW190 was captured on the night of 16/17 April, so there was plently of time for it to be test flown and reports circulated to Grumman by the time of the 28 July memo.

[stepwilk]

Mechta, I'm guessing--emphasis on "guessing"--that a grand old (comparatively) U. S. company like Grumman wasn't going to do much more than casually notice a British test pilot's report, if that, for better or worse. I certainly doubt they'd do anything like starting to design an airplane based on what "some Brit" had to say.

This get increasingly confusing. At one point, Corky Meyer said the Grumman trip to the RAE took place in September 1943, which makes some sense, since I doubt the RAF was going to let some American Navy types rush over and test a Focke-Wulf early in its time with them. At another point, Meyer says the trip took place "early in 1943," which makes far less sense if, let's say, the RAF alllowed the Americans to come over in mid-May to fly an airplane captured just a month earlier; that hardly seems to me like "early" in the year. Even if they let the Americans fly it the day after it was captured--hardly likely--that still isn't what I'd phrase as "early" in the year.

[Mechta]

There was of course the Pembrey FW190 which landed on 23 June 1942, so there would have been plenty of time to fly that too. It is always possible that there were American pilots at RAE flying the aircraft as a matter of course.

Ultimately we need to see the aircraft logbook for the captured FW190s, to know when they were flown by Americans, but this link entitled 'Captured Butcher Birds' Atelier Kecay: Captured Butcherbirds - FW-190 (http://www.kecay.com/product_info.php?products_id=31)
includes this statement:

The first Fw 190 in the US was a G-3 Wrk. Nr. 160043, which arrived at Wright Field in August 1943


This is a youtube video of some captured aircraft being tested, and has quite a lot of written info too:

YouTube - Captured German Aircraft (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLW09CSQB-w)

[stepwilk]

I have an aviation historian/writer in England, Mike Jerram, currently looking for that logbook--not the actual logbook, of course, but some record of what's in it.

Everything I've ever seen in print that credits Grumman with having based its Bearcat on the FW-190 _specifically_ refers to Bob Hall and Bud Gillies having flown the airplane that the RAE had in "early 1943" (or "September 1943," but that makes no sense, as explained above). Nobody has ever breathed a word about the opinions of AAF, RAF, Luftwaffe or other pilots who might have flown it. If they did fly it, Grumman was not about to take their advice and only their advice.

If they did read reports from Wright Field, let's say, at most it would move them to decide to also get their hands on a -190.

[HarmoniousDragmaster]

Would it be the design itself, or merely the cowl of the engine?

The reason I ask this is because the cowl for the Bristol Centaurus of the Tempest and Fury benefitted hugely from examination of the Fw190. In one history I read an engineer (who may have been Stanley Hooker, but I don't really remember) is quoted as saying we never did cowl a radial satisfactorily until we got our hands on the Fw190 and had a look at how the Germans were doing it

[stepwilk]

No, the whole FW-190/Bearcat argument devolves simply from whether the Focke-Wulf was a small-airframe/big-engine "innovation" that inspired the design of a retrograde (in terms of being substantially smaller and lighter) U.S. fighter built to the same parameters. It had nothing to do with whether the Focke-Wulf had a cooling fan, or a tighter cowl, or wider landing gear...it was much more basic than that. There were no specific FW-190 features, such as fuel injection (which actually I'm not sure the -190 had) or automatic power control (which the Americans in fact didn't like) that found their way into the F8F.

The Americans were building bigger and heavier fighters, even getting well into twin-engine fighters (F7F, P-38, F-82) and the legend is that the Germans pointed the way in a different direction. To me, it's equivalent to an American engineer driving a 300SLR and then going home to design a Viper...

I don't know that I buy the Bearcat/Focke-Wulf legend, but I'm still trying to research it.

And you people are all a huge help. Thank you!

[Load Toad]

I certainly doubt they'd do anything like starting to design an airplane based on what "some Brit" had to say.

What - like the fighter specification which resulted in the Mustang and then the suggestion to fit a Merlin engine to it?

The US and the UK cooperated quite a bit even before the US entered the war; to their credit.

[Load Toad]

Stepwilk,
Reading histories of fighters like the Bf / Me 109 and Spitfire - that was all about the most powerful (& reliable) engines on the smallest airframes.

[stepwilk]

"The US and the UK cooperated quite a bit even before the US entered the war; to their credit."

The Navy is another world.

[stepwilk]

"Reading histories of fighters like the Bf / Me 109 and Spitfire - that was all about the most powerful (& reliable) engines on the smallest airframes."

They all got bigger, and heavier, and more complex, _including_, interestingly, the FW-190. What was intersting about the Bearcat was that it, like, the F-5, was an attempt to go 180 degrees in the other direction.

[evansb]

Just a reminder what a beautiful aircraft this thread is referring to:
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r68/convair640/SDENG010-B084.jpg

[ZH875]

No - This is beautiful.
http://www.warbirdregistry.org/furyregistry/images/fury-wj288-main.jpg

[HarmoniousDragmaster]

......and is a timely reminder that the need to make smaller fighters was not recognised only by Grumman. The Fury began life as the 'Tempest Light Fighter'.

It has been a recurring theme that designers suddenly seem to realise that fighters are getting too big. The F-5 has been mentioned, there was also the Gnat, and most recently the Eurofighter single engine studies borne of Germany's misplaced desire to reduce costs by developing a completely new version of the Typhoon.

Even before the Fury and Bearcat there were attempts to 'simplify and add lightness' in types like the Martin Baker MB2 and Miles M20, but the Bearcat and Fury are undoubtedly the best examples from the pre jet age.

[Nopax,thanx]

ZH875....:=


That one doesn't even have a Centaurus!

and don't get me started on that hood :\

[stepwilk]

Funny, I just got off the phone with Steve Hinton, who of course has flown them all, and he talked of the Fury as in many ways being the polar opposite of the Bearcat. "Nice airplane, but you have to remember it's as big as a bomber." A bit of hyperbole, of course, but he hardly thinks of it as a lightweight.

[HarmoniousDragmaster]

Well it wasn't THAT much smaller than the Tempest in the final execution, but its the thought that counts ;)

Navalizing it would have piled a few pounds on, it not being initially designed for carriers like the Bearcat was.

I just noticed the Sea Fury in the pic also only has a 4 blade prop, still lovely though, if unauthentic.

[Noyade]

Just how many aircraft did this captured FW-190 "influence and inspire?"

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/3995/96590671.jpg (http://img413.imageshack.us/i/96590671.jpg/)

[Load Toad]

Well it inspired the Spitfire Mk IX. And the Spitfire 'inspired' the FW190...

[HarmoniousDragmaster]

Hi Graeme, it wasn't that the Fury itself was inspired by th Fw190, only the manner of its Centaurus radial being cowled. I think the best, or perhaps I should say prettiest, version of the Fury was the one with the Napier Sabre in it.

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a94/WtMiller/IMG_0038.jpg

[Dr Jekyll]

I thought Hawker got the idea of using a comparatively small wing for the fuselage size from the FW190.

The Spitfire IX was a response to the FW190 but was basically a re engined Mk V. From what I read the FW190 was partly inspired by the Bf109 in the sense that it was a deliberate attempt to avoid the bad points. Hence the wide wheeltrack and all round visibility.

[jdwill]

Well, I've had a few hours in the F8, and conclude that the its resemblance to the FW 190 is striking. Whether the 190 had any influence on the F8 may be left to the researchers, I would think. There must have been some real live thoughts buzzing between the German and Grumman engineers-- never mind, both great aircraft. JD Williams, Lcdr USNR

[Flybiker7000]

As not having heard about this before, my initial thoughts is why Grumman would take notice of the German lightweighting when they obviously didn't do it around the primary opponent to the Grummans: The Zero?!
Grummans response to the dominance of the Zero was a bigger engine into a similar airframe wich finally became 55% heavier. Though lightweighting isn't the major quality of the traditional american industry, it seems straightforward to try minimize the weight on the upcoming design after the F6F - Even without the presence of the Butcher Bird.

Just my 0.05$

[Wander00]

anyone asked Winkle?

[Black Sword]

The 404th's CO Colonel Leo Moon wrote.................... I did get to fly the Bearcat which I believe was more or less a copy of the 190 -although no-one ever admits it..."

[Black Sword]

Wing design about the same, yet not found on any other WW 2 fighter...........................the mainwing spar construction. Unique to the both aircraft...................................................T he main wing spar on the FW-190 extends throughout 3/4's of the entire wing, not just the center section. Bearcat main wingspar runs almost the same length as the Focke Wulfs:

[washoutt]

Black Sword, with 3/4 main spar, do you mean spanwise? Did the spar not run from tip to tip? Seems strange to me for an aircraft with such large an engine. The countertorque you need at lower speeds would probably require a full strength wing, with spars running from tip to tip.

[FlightlessParrot]

This thread started, long ago, with examination of the idea that the F8F was inspired by the FW-190 towards the idea of putting the largest engine in lightest airframe. I just found the following quote from Kurt Tank:

The Messerschmitt 109 [sic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic)] and the British Spitfire, the two fastest fighters in the world at the time we began work on the Fw 190, could both be summed up as a very large engine on the front of the smallest possible airframe; in each case armament had been added almost as an afterthought. These designs, both of which admittedly proved successful, could be likened to racehorses: given the right amount of pampering and easy course, they could outrun anything. But the moment the going became tough they were liable to falter ..... This was the background thinking behind the Focke-Wulf 190; it was not to be a racehorse but a [i]Dienstpferd, a cavalry horse.

From Wikipedia, but it's sourced. It's also said in that entry that Tank was provoked into using a radial by the example of US Navy aircraft.
All of which suggests that if there was any FW-190 in the F8F, it was definitely a case of what goes around comes around.

[Pypard]

Black Sword, with 3/4 main spar, do you mean spanwise? Did the spar not run from tip to tip? Seems strange to me for an aircraft with such large an engine. The countertorque you need at lower speeds would probably require a full strength wing, with spars running from tip to tip.

The F8F has folding wings, so no continuous spar. Wasn't it also planned to have the wingtips jettisonable?

[rich34glider]

The F8F has folding wings, so no continuous spar. Wasn't it also planned to have the wingtips jettisonable?

They were designed to fail at the hinge line at 7.5G as a weight-saving measure

[FlightlessParrot]

They were designed to fail at the hinge line at 7.5G as a weight-saving measure
According to Wikipedia, the problem was that the wing tips didn't fail simultaneously, so they ended up limiting the whole aeroplane to 7.5g.

[rich34glider]

That was the end result - via explosive bolts designed to even things up if only one tip failed, that were subsequently removed - that would have been a wild and alarming ride!

[treadigraph]

By the hinge line, do you mean the wing fold? The wing fold is between the flap and the aileron, the wing tip jettison was further out, leaving a stub aileron.

Funny thing, I've never seen The Fighter Collection's Bearcat with her wings folded in 40 years (yes, she joined Stephen Grey's collection 40 years ago!) yet the second aircraft they operated for a short while certainly sat on Duxford's flight line with her hands up.

[Jhieminga]

This thread started, long ago, with examination of the idea that the F8F was inspired by the FW-190 towards the idea of putting the largest engine in lightest airframe.
The practice of marrying a great big engine to an afterthought of an airframe started when they invented air racing. Just look at the Granville Gee Bee models (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granville_Gee_Bee_Model_R_Super_Sportster).

I think it is more likely that development of one fighter was inspired by the fact that the current crop of steeds was being outperformed by the opposition's models. Fighter performance is very dependant on altitude, weight, temperature and the handling pilot so just stating that one type was meant to outperform or mimic one other type is a very broad statement. Surely, the F8F was meant to do better in one specific corner of the envelope, without sacrificing too many of the other corners, but without knowing what the designer was thinking at the time, any other statement about his inspiration is most likely over-simplified.

[rich34glider]

By the hinge line, do you mean the wing fold? The wing fold is between the flap and the aileron, the wing tip jettison was further out, leaving a stub aileron.

Funny thing, I've never seen The Fighter Collection's Bearcat with her wings folded in 40 years (yes, she joined Stephen Grey's collection 40 years ago!) yet the second aircraft they operated for a short while certainly sat on Duxford's flight line with her hands up.

I copied the quote from wikipedia, which is what I looked at to confirm what I recalled reading in a book somewhere. If "hinge-line" is incorrect and you know correct alternative description then feel free to correct it. It would obviously be a good idea to have some aileron control post wingtip departure!

[Jhieminga]

Copied from: https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/the-exploding-bearcat.50532/

Here is a story from Corky Meyer, originally published in Flight Journal:

The engineers were trying to build the lightest airplane with the biggest motor and still make it capable of surviving carrier landings. To do this, they designed the wings lighter and weaker than normal but intended to shed about three feet on each side should it be overstressed. It could fly back to the carrier and land, even if only one wing separated. The concept worked in testing, and everyone was happy until it hit the fleet.

Pilots loved the airplane because it was fast and had the fastest rate of climb of any propeller-driven fighter in the War. Unfortunately, after a few weeks of glowing operational reports on the Bearcat, word came back that a pilot had shed one of its two wingtips in a dive-bombing-run pull-out and had augured in. Several similar occurrences followed, and the Navy and Grumman became greatly concerned. The flight envelope of the Bearcat was severely restricted, and it was immediately removed from carrier operations.

The Navy and Grumman agreed that a better way to guarantee the wingtip separation was to put a 12-inch strip of prima cord (an explosive rope used to detonate dynamite) just outboard of both wing break joints and have a set of electrical microswitches at both break joints. These microswitches would activate the other tip’s explosive device at the instant the first wingtip came off. (We called them “icebox” switches, which shows where we were in technical antiquity!) The ground tests were spectacular, to say the least. Lots of noise, smoke and flying airplane pieces.

After several successful ground tests, we rigged up a Bearcat with this “Fourth of July” system, and I was sent off to do my job as a test pilot.

One of the tips was structured to come off at 5G, and according to theory, the icebox microswitch in the other wing would electrically activate the prima cord and blow the other tip off at the same instant. Three hundred and twenty knots at 7,500 feet altitude in a 30-degree dive angle was selected as the demonstration point. To record the action, we had photographers in chase airplanes on both sides of my Bearcat. I pulled 6G to ensure the 5G rivet joint would fail and activate the other tip explosive.

Lo and behold, the genies of fate again urinated on the pillars of science. With an impressive flash of fire, smoke and debris, one weakened tip left the airplane as predicted at 5G, but the other remained as fixed to the wing as ever.
From the cockpit, a Bearcat appears to be nothing more than a huge engine with tiny wings. However, to look out and see that not only has one short wing become even shorter but also that the other one is full of holes gets your immediate attention.

One of my chase pilots came in and inspected the wing damage. He saw a large hole in the bottom surface, proving the prima cord had indeed fired, as predicted, but the wingtip had remained firmly attached even though the 12-inch hole was in the most critical stress area—the lower skin, or tension area. Good old Grumman Ironworks! Fortunately, the 12-inch hole did not cause any aerodynamic disturbance as might have been expected, and I had already landed the F8F with single tips removed and was ready for the experience, so the landing was uneventful. Back to the old drawing board.
The project engineer suggested 26 inches of prima cord be used on the next flight, after ground tests were run to check whether that amount of explosive would affect proper wingtip severance. On the next flight, when I pulled 6G, both tips departed as planned amid much smoke and parts flying off the airplane.

Both chase pilots were much more excited than I was by the visual effects; I hadn’t seen them because my eyes were glued to the accelerometer in the cockpit. They said it looked as if the airplane had blown up when both tips blew and both the ailerons and wingtip sections departed the bird. There were two very smoky explosions as two wingtips and two aileron halves came off in very rapid succession along with much shattered metal. The wingtip ends were cleanly severed as hoped for. There weren’t even small pieces of metal outboard of the end rib to suggest an explosion had done the surgery. The test was considered a great success by Grumman and the Navy. More important, I had survived the tests, which I considered an even bigger success.

There is more info on the safety wingtips here: (Link edited to avoid translation issues...) (https://tinyurl.com/2bucxu8y)

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/775x476/f8f_1_tip_removed_web_c12696b5b2a6293c2e154f24f33a678db589d5 61.jpg

[rich34glider]

Copied from: https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/the-exploding-bearcat.50532/



There is more info on the safety wingtips here: (Link edited to avoid translation issues...) (https://tinyurl.com/2bucxu8y)

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/775x476/f8f_1_tip_removed_web_c12696b5b2a6293c2e154f24f33a678db589d5 61.jpg

Great info Jhieminga, cheers!

Looks like the wiki description of "the hinge line" was referring to the actual aileron hinge denoted by the red line fore/aft about halfway along the aileron in this pic from the link:

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/640x428/121769_f8f_2_c301_vf_63_capt_paul_anderson_collection_web_0d f66bf592e7a812670bbb63990cfae82b8a6751.jpg

[treadigraph]

That sounds authentic. I think Rare Bear has the wings clipped at the same point - sure I've seen a pic showing just stub ailerons; probably Darryl Greenamyer's Conquest One did too.

[megan]

http://thanlont.blog#spot.com/2011/02/conception-of-f8f-bearcat.html (remove the hash for the link to work)The Conception of the F8F BearcatThe interweb would have you believe that the F8F Bearcat resulted from a Grumman evaluation of the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 accomplished in early 1943, possibly even at Grumman's facility at Bethpage on Long Island, New York.

There is a report of a captured FW 190 arriving at Wright Field, Ohio in August 1943. However, it seems very unlikely that it would have passed through Bethpage first for an evaluation by a Navy contractor, although I'm sure that it would have been a closely held secret if it did.

As best I can determine, the F8F originated with a memo from Roy Grumman to Chief Engineer Bill Schwendler dated 28 July 1943 requesting a predesign of a small fighter built around the most powerful R-2800 engine available and providing some additional guidelines. It was reportedly the result of previous discussions between those two dating back to at least late 1942.

A predesign drawing by Dick Hutto dated 20 August 1943 indicates that the basic size and shape, including a bubble canopy, of the Grumman G-58 were well established by then.
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/400x288/grum1148xf8f_1designsketchdickhutto_9a75fc29bcdd4f95c1d108d6 55ae5b761daacf3a.jpg

The story that seems more credible (and supported by contemporaneous documentation) is that Grumman's Bob Hall and Bud Gilles went to England in September 1943 to fly a captured Fw 190. I haven't seen Hall's report, but they were undoubtedly impressed by its speed and maneuverability. It seems likely that they would have returned to Bethpage with the intent to match, if not exceed, its performance and handling qualities with the new Grumman fighter that they had already envisaged.

It therefore seems almost certain that the basic philosophy that shaped the F8F was not the September FW 190 flight evaluation but the result of 1942 combat experience in the Pacific vis-a-vis the Mitsubishi Zero, the need for what amounted to a fast-climbing interceptor, and the requirement for a fighter the size of a Wildcat to operate from the small decks of the newly created escort carriers.

The Navy ordered prototypes of the G-58 in November 1943 and designated it the F8F. The first one flew only nine months later, in August 1944. Deliveries of the first production aircraft were made in February 1945.

However, the first air group equipped with F8Fs arrived in the Pacific just days too late to participate in the war. (In fact, it was first Navy carrier-based aircraft initiated after Pearl Harbor to get that far; most were canceled before reaching fleet squadrons.) Within a few years, it was supplanted by jet fighters and relegated to a training role.