F4F-7

[sstevens06]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I think the Sherman was an outstanding medium tank. Its reliability and speed were exemplary. The US just didn't have a heavy tank til almost the end of the war. I know the Hellcat was a great advance but thank g we had Wildcats at Midway.

I have a question. I just don't happen to know about this. I'm not asking about a specific model or nationality. Fighters with mixed armament, say two different calibers of MG or a mix of MG and cannon, did the pilot have the ability to choose which group of guns fired or even, beyond that, could he choose which individual gun would fire when he pulled the trigger?

Certain US fighters allowed pilots to select which guns to fire (or not fire). First person accounts in Bergerud's Fire in the Sky and other books indicate some pilots in US fighters with 6 MGs (Corsairs, Hellcats, etc.) would turn off their outboard guns during escort missions to give them ammo reserve on the way home.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I think the Sherman was an outstanding medium tank. Its reliability and speed were exemplary. The US just didn't have a heavy tank til almost the end of the war. I know the Hellcat was a great advance but thank g we had Wildcats at Midway.

The Sherman was equal to or better than most of its opponents when it was introduced, but by late 1944 it was outclassed. The US chose to standardize on one tank when the tech was evolving very fast. The triad of the perfect tank is Mobility - Armor - Firepower. The Sherman was superior on mobility, both from reliability and speed, but it was lacking in armor and firepower. It was good enough to get the job done.

I have a question. I just don't happen to know about this. I'm not asking about a specific model or nationality. Fighters with mixed armament, say two different calibers of MG or a mix of MG and cannon, did the pilot have the ability to choose which group of guns fired or even, beyond that, could he choose which individual gun would fire when he pulled the trigger?

In most cases pilots did have the ability to shut off guns, though with wing mounted armament, you want to turn off the same guns in each wing or the yaw from firing the guns could be severe. I believe most planes with one type of armament could also shut off individual guns. Most pilots wanted to have all guns firing though. Air to air combat is tough enough, the more guns blazing the higher the chances of a hit.

Bill

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

How could it? Extra fuel storage for one. A young whippersnapper like you should know that the kind of cameras we're referring to were a lot heavier than a 50 cal or even a number of them. Here's an interesting site:

http://www.airrecce.co.uk/cameras/raf_ww2_cameras.html

The cameras were not so heavy. Big and cumbersome, but not nearly as heavy at 21lbs as one 50cal M2 at 61lbs.

Fuel.

I think the film was the greatest weight factor. The strips were quite wide and presumably many yards long. Recon aircraft usually had at least two cameras to get the stereoscopic effect when the pictures were analyzed.

They generally used rolls, yes, but the film is not nearly as heavy as 50 cal ammo! [:)]

Cameras of the time used the big film to get extraordinary detail. The large negatives (usually 5 or 8 inches wide) gave great detail, much better than most current cameras. The weight of one of the largest, the F52, using 7 or 8.5 inch wide film (not sure which was the width because neither is a standard oil width), could be up to 75-85lbs when loaded, as shown here.

Wish I had one! I'd mount it in a van and drive around getting rolls of 7 x 8.5 inch shots of the UK! [:)]

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: obvert

The cameras were not so heavy. Big and cumbersome, but not nearly as heavy at 21lbs as one 50cal M2 at 61lbs.

Plus the ammo, weighed almost as much as the gun. To accommodate the 555 gallons of fuel in the wings (normal fuel capacity 100 US gallons, 200 with two droppable 50
-gallon tanks, the original tank under the cockpit was removed), the MTOW was increased to 10.200 lbs, 2.000 above the "normal" MTOW). IOW, this version had 2 1/2 as
much fuel capacity. An autopilot was installed, too. I don't know this but I should think it also had the best of navigation equipment at the time, certainly an RDF
(Radio Direction Finder) receiver. As important for range would be the way it was flown. This would reflect on pilot qualities - training and mission.

It must be understood that this was not a fighter, it was not meant to get into any fights, but to run for it if intercepted. Like any other recce plane. It was not
meant as a "search" plane but to get photos and information on one or more specific points.

The word "overweight" has been used here. There is no such thing as an "overweight" aircraft (if flown within the design parameters), only "gross" or MTOW weights.
These weights are calculated out from performance and safety parameters. Not to say that pilots could not dislike to fly such a heavy plane.

I have the Wildcat Flight Manual, I could look up some figures as to take-off distances, fuel consumption and ranges. As I understand it much armour was removed, too.
What this adds up to is a plane with a much lower Empty Weight, even with the larger wing tanks installed. It would also change its flight characteristics, if the fuel
in the wings weigh more than the removed guns and ammo, its roll rate would decrease.

There's nothing to say that the -7 had to load up with max. fuel for every mission...[;)]...

Came to think of it, if this, normally short-ranged, plane was flown to its max. range over a Japanese base they'd gone bananas, believing that a US carrier was in
the vicinity...[:)]

Fred

Correction: The fuselage fuel tank was not removed. A single F.56 camera was placed behind the tank. Total tank capacity: 672 gallons of fuel.

Picture: F4F-7 in 1942 - fuel could be jettisoned through pipe under the rudder:

[Macclan5]

ORIGINAL: bomccarthy

ORIGINAL: Macclan5


In support of this... perhaps more specific to the F6 Hellcat and F4F7... I note some CVE are capable of flying at least the F6.

I was "under the impression" that a number of / all the CVE for example could not fly the heavier planes.

In fact at Leyete Gulf local CAP was the F4 Wildcat (still).

I cannot recall the specific references that gave me this impression; perhaps someone with more knowledge can correct me?

F6Fs did operate from CVEs throughout the war, with some F6F squadrons flying from CVEs during the Tarawa operation. From USN records, it appears that the Sangamon class CVEs operated F6F squadrons for most of the war (you can browse photocopies of the weekly records here: https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/naval-aviation-history/location-of-us-naval-aircraft-world-war-ii.html). USN F6Fs operating from CVEs provided air cover for ANVIL in southern France, shooting down a few Luftwaffe planes in the weeks after the invasion.

The Casablanca class CVEs had some problems operating Hellcats (relatively short flight deck), so they stuck to FM Wildcats for most of the war, but the Commencement Bay class CVEs operated Marine F4U squadrons in 1945.

ORIGINAL: wdolson
The FM Wildcat was kept in production for the CVEs because of a few factors. CVEs either operated a long ways from enemy air and their fighters only had to deal with long range patrol aircraft or they were used for invasion support where the fast carriers were around and tasked with keeping enemy air at bay so the CVEs could do their job of flying ground support. The fighters were there in case something slipped through.

Additionally Grumman was maxxed out building F6F for the fast carriers. Supply was just meeting demand and there wasn't a lot of extra production to fill out other squadrons that were unlikely to encounter a lot of enemy air. The Wildcat was also significantly smaller than the F6F, so it worked better in the tight spaces on a CVE. The FM-2 had a more powerful engine that allowed Wildcats to get off a loaded deck (short run) without having to be hooked up to the catapult as well as quickly intercept enemy aircraft. The FM-1 could make a rolling launch in most situations too. Avengers usually had to be launched by catapult, even on search missions because they were too heavy to make a deck run.

The US went with a "good enough" doctrine throughout the war.

Ahh much clarified ~ !

Thank you.

The specifics about the Casablanca's must be what I read somewhere / sometime and assumed it applied to all CVE's.

Indeed it was the F6s on the Sangamons that me ponder posting a thread on OOB when I discovered this thread.

So much good knowledge here.

Now I 'really' need to find a snappy pic of a Sangamon CVE and add it to my siggy in the forums... Sangamon Fan Boi. This game has given me a real respect for those old oiler CVEs

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

A question for airplanes experts. It was my understanding that the F-4F-7 was a Wildcat stripped of all guns and with a non-folding wet wing with pretty incredible RECON capabilities. Barrett Tillman and other authors said that not only was it CV capable , but that most CV's at the time of Guadalcanal carried at least one. I've got a squadron , which I've been using extensively from land bases , but can't get it to fly out to a CV. Am I doing something wrong or is it not CV capable in the game for some reason? Many thanks in advance for any and all help. [:)]

Just for asking, what range do you get with this one in the game?

Fred

[Buckrock]

ORIGINAL: Leandros

Just for asking, what range do you get with this one in the game?

Fred

For my stock game, I have 21 hexes for normal, 27 for extended and 81 for max.

And I noticed in your previous post some of your facts and assumptions seem at odds with what I've read in the USN and Marine records about
the aircraft, which might be why I'm not as optimistic about the F4F-7's historic potential. But rather than try to convince you otherwise, perhaps
the following might help put the aircraft's potential into perspective.....

From chapter I of John B. Lundstroms "The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign"......

"If the F4F-4 was a winner, the same could not be said for its photo-reconnaissance version, the F4F-7, being supplied in limited numbers
to carrier utility units for use by the VF squadrons. Basically, the F4F-7 was a stripped-down version of the fixed wing F4F-3 transformed
into a camera-equipped flying fuel tank. Fully loaded with 685 gallons of fuel, the beast topped 10,300 pounds and required special wind
conditions just to get aloft.

Fuel supplanted all the armament and protection, with only a fuel dump system for defense. Even so, top speed reached only 270 knots (310
MPH), slower than its prospective opponents. Estimated range was 3,700 miles; indeed the F4F-7 flew nonstop from coast to coast in 11 hours.
As one expert on the Wildcat quipped, “At one time an endurance of 24 hours was claimed for the airplane, which must have brought great joy
to everyone except the prospective pilot.”

At San Diego Lt. Louis H. Bauer’s VF-2 detachment rendered a scathing verdict of the F4F-7. Its prospective pilots, certain members of the
VF squadrons who had taken aerial photography courses at Quantico, felt little reason to love the photo Wildcat."

One final point to add to Lundstrom's view, I've noticed the Marine air units like VMO-251 and VMD-154 that flew the F4F-7 seemed somewhat
more accepting of the aircraft but that may be that they normally flew it with only the fuselage tank containing fuel. They also tended to use
it only for mapping missions in quieter areas or at least ones that had Allied control of the skies, leaving the serious work for armed recon
aircraft like the PB4Y-1P.

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

ORIGINAL: Leandros

Just for asking, what range do you get with this one in the game?

Fred

For my stock game, I have 21 hexes for normal, 27 for extended and 81 for max.

And I noticed in your previous post some of your facts and assumptions seem at odds with what I've read in the USN and Marine records about
the aircraft, which might be why I'm not as optimistic about the F4F-7's historic potential. But rather than try to convince you otherwise, perhaps
the following might help put the aircraft's potential into perspective.....

From chapter I of John B. Lundstroms "The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign"......

"If the F4F-4 was a winner, the same could not be said for its photo-reconnaissance version, the F4F-7, being supplied in limited numbers
to carrier utility units for use by the VF squadrons. Basically, the F4F-7 was a stripped-down version of the fixed wing F4F-3 transformed
into a camera-equipped flying fuel tank. Fully loaded with 685 gallons of fuel, the beast topped 10,300 pounds and required special wind
conditions just to get aloft.

Fuel supplanted all the armament and protection, with only a fuel dump system for defense. Even so, top speed reached only 270 knots (310
MPH), slower than its prospective opponents. Estimated range was 3,700 miles; indeed the F4F-7 flew nonstop from coast to coast in 11 hours.
As one expert on the Wildcat quipped, “At one time an endurance of 24 hours was claimed for the airplane, which must have brought great joy
to everyone except the prospective pilot.”

At San Diego Lt. Louis H. Bauer’s VF-2 detachment rendered a scathing verdict of the F4F-7. Its prospective pilots, certain members of the
VF squadrons who had taken aerial photography courses at Quantico, felt little reason to love the photo Wildcat."

One final point to add to Lundstrom's view, I've noticed the Marine air units like VMO-251 and VMD-154 that flew the F4F-7 seemed somewhat
more accepting of the aircraft but that may be that they normally flew it with only the fuselage tank containing fuel. They also tended to use
it only for mapping missions in quieter areas or at least ones that had Allied control of the skies, leaving the serious work for armed recon
aircraft like the PB4Y-1P.

Thank you, Buck, you don't have to convince me of anything, what I am aiming at is just to get facts and
figures out in the day since the question was asked here in the first place. If the local leadership was not up
to making use of its proper potential or felt they had no need for it, they were the best to judge in that. That
said, the story smell a little of what I have seen in so many other controversies regarding warplanes, that I am
not surprised that the verdict turned out the way it did. This was a special plane configuration that had to be
used in a special way - by specialists.

If i should go on with this it wouldn't be to convince anybody that the decision was wrong, but rather to show what
it could have done. Probably did, too. As an example, with a "normal" gross weight, 8.200 lbs., it would still have
more than 3.5 times as much fuel as the "fighting" version of the F4F.

A practical question I would like to have clarified is if it at all could have taken off from a carrier with its
specified MTOW - which you state is 10.300 lbs. - my memory say 10.200 but I happily accept your correction.
Unfortunately, I have found no graphs on this. I have graphs for a "gross" weight of 8.200 lbs. with compensation
for runway length and headwinds.

As you well know, discussions and comparisons of aircraft are often difficult because the same parameters are rarely
used, or found, on the types to be compared. Typical is your own remark that max. speed for the "-7" on max weight
was only 310 mph. - that is only marginally slower than the "standard" version. At what altitude was this? What
was its max. speed with two "normal" drop-tanks? I dare say it was no more. Does that mean it wasn't usable with
drop-tanks? Just to indicate the complexity of what we are doing.

Did any Japanese long-range photo-recce planes have a higher speed in '42? Were the Japanese scouts not successful?
Was a PBY-5 better off if intercepted? Sorry, i wasn't supposed to get into that....[:)]....

Fred

P.S.: And just to have said it, this is not the only plane that needed a headwind to get off the ground in a MTOW
configuration (depending on the runway length, of course). Luckily for the Navy guys they could usually cater for
this quite easily, without the help of the weather Gods, by turning the ship into the wind. They usually did,
anyway. I think it unnecessary to say that it was never meant for "armed recon".

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Leandros

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

ORIGINAL: Leandros

Just for asking, what range do you get with this one in the game?

Fred

For my stock game, I have 21 hexes for normal, 27 for extended and 81 for max.

And I noticed in your previous post some of your facts and assumptions seem at odds with what I've read in the USN and Marine records about
the aircraft, which might be why I'm not as optimistic about the F4F-7's historic potential. But rather than try to convince you otherwise, perhaps
the following might help put the aircraft's potential into perspective.....

From chapter I of John B. Lundstroms "The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign"......

"If the F4F-4 was a winner, the same could not be said for its photo-reconnaissance version, the F4F-7, being supplied in limited numbers
to carrier utility units for use by the VF squadrons. Basically, the F4F-7 was a stripped-down version of the fixed wing F4F-3 transformed
into a camera-equipped flying fuel tank. Fully loaded with 685 gallons of fuel, the beast topped 10,300 pounds and required special wind
conditions just to get aloft.

Fuel supplanted all the armament and protection, with only a fuel dump system for defense. Even so, top speed reached only 270 knots (310
MPH), slower than its prospective opponents. Estimated range was 3,700 miles; indeed the F4F-7 flew nonstop from coast to coast in 11 hours.
As one expert on the Wildcat quipped, “At one time an endurance of 24 hours was claimed for the airplane, which must have brought great joy
to everyone except the prospective pilot.”

At San Diego Lt. Louis H. Bauer’s VF-2 detachment rendered a scathing verdict of the F4F-7. Its prospective pilots, certain members of the
VF squadrons who had taken aerial photography courses at Quantico, felt little reason to love the photo Wildcat."

One final point to add to Lundstrom's view, I've noticed the Marine air units like VMO-251 and VMD-154 that flew the F4F-7 seemed somewhat
more accepting of the aircraft but that may be that they normally flew it with only the fuselage tank containing fuel. They also tended to use
it only for mapping missions in quieter areas or at least ones that had Allied control of the skies, leaving the serious work for armed recon
aircraft like the PB4Y-1P.

Thank you, Buck, you don't have to convince me of anything, what I am aiming at is just to get facts and
figures out in the day since the question was asked here in the first place. If the local leadership was not up
to making use of its proper potential or felt they had no need for it, they were the best to judge in that. That
said, the story smell a little of what I have seen in so many other controversies regarding warplanes, that I am
not surprised that the verdict turned out the way it did. This was a special plane configuration that had to be
used in a special way - by specialists.

If i should go on with this it wouldn't be to convince anybody that the decision was wrong, but rather to show what
it could have done. Probably did, too. As an example, with a "normal" gross weight, 8.200 lbs., it would still have
more than 3.5 times as much fuel as the "fighting" version of the F4F.

A practical question I would like to have clarified is if it at all could have taken off from a carrier with its
specified MTOW - which you state is 10.300 lbs. - my memory say 10.200 but I happily accept your correction.
Unfortunately, I have found no graphs on this. I have graphs for a "gross" weight of 8.200 lbs. with compensation
for runway length and headwinds.

As you well know, discussions and comparisons of aircraft are often difficult because the same parameters are rarely
used, or found, on the types to be compared. Typical is your own remark that max. speed for the "-7" on max weight
was only 310 mph. - that is only marginally slower than the "standard" version. At what altitude was this? What
was its max. speed with two "normal" drop-tanks? I dare say it was no more. Does that mean it wasn't usable with
drop-tanks? Just to indicate the complexity of what we are doing.

Did any Japanese long-range photo-recce planes have a higher speed in '42? Were the Japanese scouts not successful?
Was a PBY-5 better off if intercepted? Sorry, i wasn't supposed to get into that....[:)]....

Fred

P.S.: And just to have said it, this is not the only plane that needed a headwind to get off the ground in a MTOW
configuration (depending on the runway length, of course). Luckily for the Navy guys they could usually cater for
this quite easily, without the help of the weather Gods, by turning the ship into the wind. They usually did,
anyway. I think it unnecessary to say that it was never meant for "armed recon".

I'm afraid that the geezer in me is required to say that if by only building 27 airframes (most likely more than they needed) this makes it a "crummy airplane" than the famous SR-71 (also a specialized RECON plane) must also be regarded as "junk". After all they only built 32. Perhaps we'd like to rethink the "not very good because they didn't buy very many" comment? [&:][:D]

[MakeeLearn]

I'm afraid that the geezer in me is required to say that if by only building 27 airframes (most likely more than they needed) this makes it a "crummy airplane" than the famous SR-71 (also a specialized RECON plane) must also be regarded as "junk". After all they only built 32. Perhaps we'd like to rethink the "not very good because they didn't buy very many" comment?

The plane could be considered great, yet using Darwin's Finches as examples there was no niche it was needed for. Where as there was a need for the SR71

[Buckrock]

ORIGINAL: Leandros

As you well know, discussions and comparisons of aircraft are often difficult because the same parameters are rarely
used, or found, on the types to be compared. Typical is your own remark that max. speed for the "-7" on max weight
was only 310 mph. - that is only marginally slower than the "standard" version. At what altitude was this?

the part of my previous post in bold is a direct quote from Lundstrom's book. So they aren't my facts and views but his,
and are based on his study of the USN commanders, pilots and mechanics who had direct experience with the F4F-7.

What was its max. speed with two "normal" drop-tanks? I dare say it was no more. Does that mean it wasn't usable with
drop-tanks? Just to indicate the complexity of what we are doing.

The F4F-7 wasn't designed to carry drop-tanks.

Did any Japanese long-range photo-recce planes have a higher speed in '42? Were the Japanese scouts not successful?
Was a PBY-5 better off if intercepted? Sorry, i wasn't supposed to get into that....[:)]....

Yes there was a Japanese long-range photo-recce plane that had a higher speed in '42. And yes and no, the Japaness scouts
had mixed results. And no, the PBY-5 was not better off if intercepted.

And yes, I don't see the relevance either.

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

The F4F-7 wasn't designed to carry drop-tanks.

I know, I was comparing with the "normal" Wildcat - and speeds.

Fred

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

I'm afraid that the geezer in me is required to say that if by only building 27 airframes (most likely more than they needed) this makes it a "crummy airplane" than the famous SR-71 (also a specialized RECON plane) must also be regarded as "junk". After all they only built 32. Perhaps we'd like to rethink the "not very good because they didn't buy very many" comment?

The plane could be considered great, yet using Darwin's Finches as examples there was no niche it was needed for.

I can go along with that as the USN's posture in that period was rather defensive. The best I can think of was to keep
track of Rabaul. But they had little with which to make use of that information. A similar Hellcat a year later could
have been of better use. Maybe they had a such one?

Fred

[MakeeLearn]

This was a special plane configuration that had to be used in a special way - by specialists.

Exactly, special operations that were not taken into account. A lack of vision or not listening to someone who had the vision but not the command. A missed opportunity .

A similar Hellcat a year later could have been of better use. Maybe they had a such one?

Not sure, the Pacific War has been some of my least studied, but Iam changing that.

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

This was a special plane configuration that had to be used in a special way - by specialists.

Exactly, special operations that were not taken into account. A lack of vision or not listening to someone who had the vision but not the command. A missed opportunity .

I'm sure MacArthur would have loved to have such an aircraft available to him.

Fred

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: Leandros

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

I'm afraid that the geezer in me is required to say that if by only building 27 airframes (most likely more than they needed) this makes it a "crummy airplane" than the famous SR-71 (also a specialized RECON plane) must also be regarded as "junk". After all they only built 32. Perhaps we'd like to rethink the "not very good because they didn't buy very many" comment?

The plane could be considered great, yet using Darwin's Finches as examples there was no niche it was needed for.

I can go along with that as the USN's posture in that period was rather defensive. The best I can think of was to keep
track of Rabaul. But they had little with which to make use of that information. A similar Hellcat a year later could
have been of better use. Maybe they had a such one?

Fred

Well, what do you know - they did - Wikipedia:

F6F-5P Hellcat. Small numbers of F6F-5s were converted into photo-reconnaissance aircraft, with the camera equipment being fitted in the rear fuselage.

Fred

[MakeeLearn]

F6F-5P of VP-23 crashes on USS Princeton

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

F6F-5P of VP-23 crashes on USS Princeton

He, what happened? Landing too heavy, with too high speed - a tired pilot after a VERY long recce flight....? Those swirling cables are not healthy.

Fred

[MakeeLearn]

Grumman F6F-5P Hellcat

If Iam looking at pic right, looks like it had to roll to take pics.

[MakeeLearn]

He, what happened? Landing too heavy, with too high speed - a tired pilot after a VERY long recce flight....? Those swirling cables are not healthy.

Website doesnt say, I wonder if it had to do with the recon setup(weight distribution/fuel) or just a hard landing.