F4F-4 Wildcat

Compared to the F4F-3 and FM-2 it was inferior in speed and rate of climb, which was most likely due to extra weight from all the armor that was added, not to mention that the placement of the 2 extra .50 cal mgs dispersed the ammunition, resulting in reduced firing time, but despite that, in the hands of the USN and USMC it still held its own against the Japanese A6M 'Zero' at Coral sea, Midway, and Guadalcanal, achieving a 1:1 kill ratio against its vaunted adversary. But does anyone think that if the folding wings was the only addition that was made to the Wildcat, and there was no extra armor(adding weight) and guns(reducing ammo per gun) added, would the F4F-4 have had simliar performance to the F4F-3? Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

 

I am not a expert on the F4F, but in my humble opinion this airframe had pretty much reached its peak overall performance. The modifications seem to play into this types primary strengths, the ability to absorb and dish out punishment. Can not really argue with a 1:1 kill ratio considering the advantages Japan began with in the first year of the war.

 

Cannot say about the Wildcat but for instance the Brewster Buffalo was considered a massive failure in the US aviation, however the Finns used with deadly accuracy. The Zero was effective due to low weight and armor, at least I have learnt so, and it was just time that other planes could come and beat it by the US air force. If it cannot stand shots to equal planes then it is soon a loser. And what comes to Brewster I cannot see all Finns would have been better pilots than the US air force could give??! They just did not like it,perhaps?

 

I agree with Belasar. No matter how much they fiddled with the F4F, it would never match the Zero in speed and manuverability--in other words, the F4F was not and could not be an F6F. Space was at a premium on carriers, especially on the escort carriers the F4F did such fine work from, so folding wings were a must. Adding extra guns and armor enhanced the F4F's main advantages over the A6M, and the 1:1 ratio suggests to me that this was done without a prohibitive loss of other qualities. For a slow early war fighter the F4F did damn well, even in the F4F-4 version.

 

This probably deserves another thread, but the Brewster 39 (Buffalo) was at its best in Finland. Many factors entered into this. The Finns got early models with lighter armament and less armor than the later aircraft used by the US, British, and Dutch, and these aircraft were faster and more nimble because of their lighter weight. The Finns had excellent pilots and faced a Soviet airforce that in 1939-41 was mostly less efficient than the Japanese later encountered in the Pacific. As to the quality of the pilots, the RAF, RAAF, and RNZAF squadrons in Malaya and Burma were mostly newly formed. The Brewsters they flew had more armor, gunpower, and ammunition than the 39s flown by the Finns, but all this was crammed onto the same small, underpowered airframe and the extra weight seriously degraded performance. The Brewster Aircraft Company was not an efficient organization, and the aircraft it sent to the British in the Far East had many mechanical problems. The fuel lines leaked fumes into the cockpits, and many of the engines were worn out. The F4F was not a brilliant design, but within its limitations it was fundamentally sound. Brewster simply tried to do too much on too small an airframe, and the Model 39 lacked the room for modification and further development that made the Grumman line so successful.

 

Thanx Terry D. That definitely sounds like the answer to the question why we had so much success with Brewster.

 

The F4F included much to RN/FAA requirements, such as folding wings, self sealing tanks pilot armour and six rather than four guns to cope with German and Italian aircraft. The extra armament may not have been as necessary against Japanese aircraft

 

The F4F-3 and the A6M2 had exactly the same top speed - 331 mph. Above 200 kts, the A6M lost much of its maneuvering advantage and the F4F could break away with a diving right turn. The A6M's primary advantage was climb performance and low speed maneuverability.

The F4F-4 lost 11 mph of top speed and a bit of climb performance, the penalty for adding 975 lbs with no increase in horsepower.

The FM-2 gained 350 hp which boosted its top speed back to 331 but more importantly, it would climb at about 3,600 ft/min. The FM-2 had an outstanding record operating from the jeep carriers.

 

mccoffe beat me to it.


"But does anyone think that if the folding wings was the only addition that was made to the Wildcat, and there was no extra armor and guns(resulting in an increase in weight) added, would the F4F-4 have had simliar performance to the F4F-3?"

The empty weights of the planes were 5,426 vs 5,778lb. The armament was a minor factor. The two guns added 147lb but the smaller amount of ammo saved 84lb. The better protected fuel system added a mere 30lb. A total plus of 93lb. The folding wing added almost 300lb.

PS: The folding wing added a lot of weight but thanks to it a carrier could have additional Wildcats.

 

I remember reading that one of the USN pilots of the time considered the Buffalo his favorite plane to fly he just didn't want to be flying it in combat.

 

Was it Boyington who said the Brewster was like a sports car, the Grumman like a truck?

As usual, mccoffee hits the key points.

I've read that F4F-4 pilots would often fight with just four machine guns, considered adequate against Japanese aircraft, and save the other two for when the first four used up their ammunition. This would give them approximately the same total firing time.

 

Boyington's comments on the Buffalo - Warning -> language!

http://www.warbirdforum.com/pappy.htm

 

IIRC, that was Gordon Firebaugh. it also applied to the -1 & -2 marks of the F2A, but he was not impressed with the F2A-3.

 

My point on the 2 extra .50 cals wasn't about weight, but about the reduction of firing time due to spreading out the same amount of ammunition over the additional mgs, in the original 4 gun armament our pilots had 34 seconds of sustained fire, with the 6 guns it was reduced to under 20, now granted what Carronade noted probably helped to retain the original firing time, still I believe the 2 extra guns were not needed.

Didn't Grumman also increase the armor as well, and wasn't that also a factor in the -4 being overweight, that makes me wonder if only adding the folding wings and(after you brought it up) the protected fuel system would not have degraded the Wildcats performance as much, was the extra armor really necessary, I'm sure the F4F-3 was still capable of absorbing punishment.

 

Seven pounds of armour were added. The FM-2 got another 70lb, though I'm not sure if the was a definition thing. Weight previously in this category was now in that.

On the number of guns. The USN pilots didn't need six but they were the very definition of an elite force. But did the usual air combat offer enough opportunities for 34 seconds of shooting?

 

And did it with 5 less cylinders and 20 fewer cubic inches

 

That didn't save the Brewster Buffalo F2A-3, which was using the Wright R-1820-40, as opposed to the FM-2's R-1820-56.

 

Great discussion and a good opportunity to provide a link to one of my favorite all time museums, The National Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola. I was going to provide the link to the F4F, but decided upon the master page because there are too many good aircraft to see not to. On one of the Wildcat variant pages there's a cool virtual cockpit view. Enjoy!

http://www.navalaviationmuseum.org/attractions/aircraft-exhibits/

 

I second your sentiments regarding the Naval Aviation Museum. Been there many times. If you go on a Tuesday or Wednesday during the season, you can take in a Blue Angels show as they practice right out back of the museum.
http://www.navalaviationmuseum.org/attractions/blue-angels/

 

I don't think so. At least the quote referenced below wasn't the one I was thinking of. Could have been a paraphrase of it though. Been too long.

Whoops I see Takao has identified it in the mean time. Need to read all before answering ...