# F4F wildcat Vs. Me 109



## Vassili Zaitzev (Mar 9, 2006)

If the F4F-3 or F4F-4 went into combat against a 109. who do you think would come out the victor?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 9, 2006)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> If the F4F-3 or F4F-4 went into combat against a 109. who do you think would come out the victor?



Here's combat from a FM-2..

http://ww2aircraft.net/forum/about1239.html&highlight=

"On 26 March 1945, in a last action, FM-2's from 882 Squadron 
Lieut Comdr. GAM Flood, RNVR) off Searcher, escorting a flight of 
Avengers along the coast of Norway, was attacked by a flight of 
eight III Gruppe JG 5 Me-109Gs. The Wildcats (now called 
“Wildcat” instead of “Martlet” as the FAA adopts the USN names 
for carrier aircraft) shot down four of the Me-109Gs at a cost of 
one Wildcat damaged. A fifth 109 was claimed as damaged."


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 9, 2006)

But do the german loss's for that day agree with the RN claims?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 9, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> But do the german loss's for that day agree with the RN claims?


As far as I know - Yep!!!


----------



## crowdpleaser (Mar 9, 2006)

they might have just been lucky maybe the weather sucked! 8)


----------



## R Leonard (Mar 9, 2006)

As near as can be determined from available Luftwaffe loss lists, there were three 109’s lost for sure, werk# 412398 (Fw. Hermannn Jaeger), #782139 (Uffz. Gottfried Rösch), and #782270 (Fw. Heinrich Dreisbach). One other 109 crashed, (pilot not listed) on landing, however the information available does not indicate if the crash was due to pilot error or from battle damage. Damage to this airplane was noted as 25%. Available Luftwaffe credit lists show no claims from this action.

Why would they need any special luck or crappy weather? Because the results don't fit the mold? Nonsense.

Rich

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 9, 2006)

I bet a F6F vs -109 fight would be interesting.


----------



## Soren (Mar 9, 2006)

Maybe someone should look up the loss record's for that day ?

Wouldn't surprise me if its true though, considering the kind of lads who were flying 109's by then... Poor kids...

Back to topic:

The 109 no doubt...


----------



## Soren (Mar 9, 2006)

Good info Leonard.


----------



## R Leonard (Mar 9, 2006)

The only fighter-to-fighter FAA F6F action took place in May 1944. On 8 May, F6F's from the Fleet Air Arm's No. 800 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. SJ Hall, DSC, RN), off HMS Emperor, while escorting a flight of Barracudas were jumped a mixed group of Me-109's and FW-190's. Two F6F's were lost, one, probably, to anti-aircraft fire (one source indicates that both F6Fs were lost in a mid-air collision, not to any German fire of any kind); the RN pilots were creditied with 2 Me-109's and one FW-190. Available Luftwaffe loss listings show three Me-109Gs lost in this action, werk# 14697 (Ofw. Kurt), 10347 (Uffz. Brettin), and unknown # (Fw. Horst). On the Luftwaffe side, Uffz. Hallstick claimed two F6Fs and Lieut. Prenzler claimed one.

Rich


----------



## Soren (Mar 9, 2006)

Was Hallstick's and Prenzerl's claims confirmed by the OKL ?


----------



## R Leonard (Mar 9, 2006)

Haven't the slightest idea. Sifted the data from one of those big lists of Luftwaffe victories that are floating around out there. My guess is probably, but you know how it goes, credits and actuals don't always match.


----------



## Soren (Mar 9, 2006)

True...

I doubt they were confirmed though, considering all the witnesses that had to be present and the amount of paper work that had to be done. But I'll research it and see if I can find the answer.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 9, 2006)

crowdpleaser said:


> they might have just been lucky maybe the weather sucked! 8)



The F4F actally had a better diving speed and was more maneuvable than the -109...


----------



## book1182 (Mar 9, 2006)

That's a good question. I would have to go with the F4F for the same reasons that I would go with it over a Zero. Not saying that the Me-109 and Zero were the same but they show some of the same qualities and what made the Zero better than the F4F. i.e. rate of roll, turning circle, and ability to climb. These would probably be less in the Me-109 except climb. The F4F would still be stronger, better team tactics, and better fire power.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 9, 2006)

Excellent info RL....


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 10, 2006)

German pilots in 1945 were n00bs with an hour of training


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 10, 2006)

No they werent... Many of the pilots were instructor pilots with many hours in the cockpit...


----------



## delcyros (Mar 10, 2006)

Can agree with this with the exception of team tactics. This is a factor which has nothing to do with the design but with the skill and fighter doctrines of the pilots involved. Your statement imply that the 109- Luftwaffe fighter doctrines were as crap as those of the zeros (which depended so much on turning dogfight). To this I disagree. 109- fighter pilots are reputated for excellent team tactics including the introduction of Rotte. The tactics made them such a good air superiority fighter, not the statistics. 
Most 109- versions are considerably faster than the F4F and since the 109- accelerates in horizontal and climb much better than the F4F, I have no idea what plane takes on more speed faster in a dive. Wouldn´t be to sure that this goes to the F4F.
The F4F is undoubtly more rugged and has a more balanced armement. It probably also has a better high speed handling but maybe someone else can help out here with details.
Cheers!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 10, 2006)

I'm looking for the data but somewhere there is a comparison of the F4F-3 to the Me-109E. In that airticle it cited the -109 with the speed and climb advantage, it spoke of the F4F being more maneuvable and having a greater dive speed (becuase of it's weight?). Anyway, I'm sure this article will turn up....


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Mar 10, 2006)

No offense on the 109, but Id take the F4F.


----------



## Soren (Mar 10, 2006)

Whats a matter with you people ?! This incident took place in 1945 ! By then the 109 was vastly superior to the F4F Wildcat and F6F Hellcat.

The maneuverability of these aircraft was roughly the same, while the 109 enjoyed a tremendous speed and climb advantage.

Its like choosing a Zero over a F4U-4 Corsair, it makes just as little sense..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 10, 2006)

Soren said:


> The maneuverability of these aircraft was roughly the same, while the 109 enjoyed a tremendous speed and climb advantage.


That it did, but again I've seen information to state the F4F-3 was actually more maneuverable than the Me-109E.

I think many tend to think of the F4F as this stubby little plug that couldn't maneuver well, the opposite is actually the truth, the F4F was highly maneuverable, the problem here is the F4F always got a bad rap on maneuverability because its always compared to its main adversary - the Zero, one of the most maneuverable aircraft of WW2 under 300 mph!!!!

But I'd have to Agree with Soren, If I had to pick between the 2 I'd take the Me-109 any-day!


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 10, 2006)

I would choose the 109 as well.


----------



## Soren (Mar 10, 2006)

FLYBOYJ,

Yes, the F4F was certainly a very maneuverable fighter, having a wing-loading of a mere 30.5 lbs/sq.ft. and a wing with an above average Cl-max. The F4F was definitely more maneuverable than the Me-109E, but it would have a very hard time against the superior Bf-109F however. 

And while probably being more maneuverable than any Allied or Axis fighter by 45 in the ETO, the F4F was however no match for these much speedier and faster climbing fighters.

By mid 1942 the Wildcat was completely obsolete for operating in the ETO.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 10, 2006)

agree.....

I think the FM-2 put a little "shot" into the design but even then too it was quickly outclassed but still did surprisingly well in the Pacific and in its limited combat in the ETO...


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 12, 2006)

it was better at the PTO cause the good pilots were dying faster than the newbies could gain experience
and good planes came out late


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 12, 2006)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> it was better at the PTO cause the good pilots were dying faster than the newbies could gain experience
> and good planes came out late



192 F4Fs were lost the entire war...The Zero wasn't flown to its full potential and the F4F did a lot better than given credit for...

End all, the USN had better tactics and combat discipline....


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 12, 2006)

although being all old style and following your emperor is OK, old Samurai tactics dont go with modern weapons


----------



## MacArther (Mar 16, 2006)

I'm gonna go against the grain, and stay with the F4F4, or the FM-2. Call me crazy, but I'd like to be able to dive then turn fast enough that I can get the any guys that might be on my tail. The dive would be to catch up to any faster planes, and then I would rip their wings and pilot to shreds with concentrated .50 caliber fire. Personal preference in the mk. of the plane lies in the F4F-3 or the FM-2 because of the higher speeds and the larger amount of ammo. 



> it spoke of the F4F being more maneuvable and having a greater dive speed (becuase of it's weight?)



It would be logical that the F4F4 or FM-2 would dive fast due to high weight, because as a certain law of physics states "an object in motion must remain in motion unless acted upon." Added to the fact that the heavier something is, the harder it is to stop and the faster it moves when falling (and no, I don't include the test on the Moon that shows objects falling at the same speed). I'm not a math person, and college is a year away, so you'll have to excuse me if I don't go into large equations.


----------



## Soren (Mar 17, 2006)

Yeah, and I guess you'd choose a Zero over a F4U-4 Corsair as-well ?? I thought not  

The FM-2 has a pathetic climb rate, a pathetic energy retention and last but not least a VERY slow top speed. It was no match for the fighters roaming the skies in the ETO by 45.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 17, 2006)

Soren said:


> Yeah, and I guess you'd choose a Zero over a F4U-4 Corsair as-well ?? I thought not
> 
> The FM-2 has a pathetic climb rate, a pathetic energy retention and last but not least a VERY slow top speed. It was no match for the fighters roaming the skies in the ETO by 45.


Agree, they did have an excellent kill ratio in the Pacific late in the war becuase there were little skilled pilots to challenge them...

I believe an FM-2 got the last kill of the war....


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 17, 2006)

the last plane shot down (i think) was a C6N "myrt"


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 17, 2006)

I think you're right!!!


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 17, 2006)

anyways the F4F would have been pathetic in ETO, I think they will be hacked up alot worse than shortly after Pearl Harbor


----------



## evangilder (Mar 17, 2006)

Didn't the F4F get used during Operation Torch?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 17, 2006)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> anyways the F4F would have been pathetic in ETO, I think they will be hacked up alot worse than shortly after Pearl Harbor



Here we go! looma - Listen real Carefully - *WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!!!!*

By the time it was starting to be withdrawn from front line service the F4F had between a 4 to 1 to 7 to 1 kill ratio (depending who you talk to) over the Zero. Even during Midway the F4F attained a 1.5 to 1 kill ratio over the Zero!!!

189 F4F/FM-2'S were lost in air-to-air combat during WW2 - they claimed 1327 Zeros. 

You were saying????? 

The F4F-3 or 4 would of been a good match for the Me-109E.....


----------



## Glider (Mar 17, 2006)

Have to back FJ up on this. Later faster 109's would have been a bit of a handfull but not the 109E


----------



## MacArther (Mar 17, 2006)

> Yeah, and I guess you'd choose a Zero over a F4U-4 Corsair as-well ?? I thought not



That is completely different, one plane actually has armor and can dive and turn while diving pretty well, while the other cannot. In my case, both planes can dive well, and the 109 probably retained the speed for longer, but the F4F would be moving through the verticle through the whole attack. If the 109 wants to follow, it does so on the F4Fs terms, and then it has to deal with the punishment that the F4F can absorb. As for the low top speed, can you really say that a 109 patrolling late in the war would be doing so at top speed the moment it left the tarmac?  
Yes, there is a speed descrepency, but by using boom-and-zoom tactics, this can be rectified by the Wild Cat pilots.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 17, 2006)

The F4F has advantages over the Bf-109E but if depending on boom and zoom tatcics the Bf-109 will undoubtly have the edge, not the F4F. The verticle is the advantage of the Messer. To overtake a tactic working well against the even worser vertical flying Zero wouldn´t be that a wise choice if facing the -109. 
The most striking advantage for equal skilled combattants always was numerical superiority in dogfights.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 17, 2006)

Glider said:


> Have to back FJ up on this. Later faster 109's would have been a bit of a handfull but not the 109E


yeah but Zeroes entered combat when the 109F came out


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 17, 2006)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> Glider said:
> 
> 
> > Have to back FJ up on this. Later faster 109's would have been a bit of a handfull but not the 109E
> ...



looma - listen again - *WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!*

The Me-109F entered service in JANUARY 1941!!

A6M2 entered combat for the first time on *August 19, 1940*.

Study, study, study, young apprentice - you have a long way to go....


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 18, 2006)

damn, the exams must have diluted me... probably thats why i came out on top


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 18, 2006)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> damn, the exams must have diluted me... probably thats why i came out on top


Well that's good to hear - keep the grades up!!!


----------



## Soren (Mar 18, 2006)

The F4F Wildcat was a match for the Me-109E, no doubt. But against the Bf-109F, the Wildcat was undoubtedly the underdog ! 

The Bf-109F would maneuver just as well as the Wildcat, while at the same time having a clear speed and climb advantage. 

MacArther,

Going vertical against a 109 is what would spell death for the Wildcat, so forget that. 

Turning is only an option against the 109E, against a 109F it will get you killed, but even then it could be dangerous, as that relies heavily upon the 109E's slats to malfunction !(But luckily they tended to do that quite often) 

Diving is really the only area where the Wildcat has a clear advantage, and even then it is only against the 109E, against the 109F it will be left behind. (The 109F has more power and alot less drag)

Now remember the superior 109F already saw service in the ETO from 41-42, now imagine how the Wildcat would fair against the fighters which were patrolling the skies in 44-45.... There would be no contest what so ever !

The Bf-109's and Fw-190's would slaughter the Wildcat the same way the Corsair slaughtered the Zero in the PTO.



> As for the low top speed, can you really say that a 109 patrolling late in the war would be doing so at top speed the moment it left the tarmac?



MacArther, most of the fighters in service in the ETO by 43 were already "Cruising" at higher speeds than the Wildcat's "Top Speed"  

However like all other fighters, the Wildcat would be cruising most of the time as-well, and even the Me-109E was cruising at a 70-80 mph greater speed than the Wildcat.

So you see, the Wildcat wasn't fit for the ETO, not even in 1941. And by 1942 the Wildcat could be considered completely obsolete by ETO standards.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 18, 2006)

Agree - The F4F/FM-2 would not be able to take on any Axis beyond the capabilities of the Me-109E.


----------



## R Leonard (Mar 19, 2006)

So, which had better performance, the 109E or the 109G?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 19, 2006)

R Leonard said:


> So, which had better performance, the 109E or the 109G?



The G hands down....


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 20, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> R Leonard said:
> 
> 
> > So, which had better performance, the 109E or the 109G?
> ...


Agreed.


----------



## R Leonard (Mar 20, 2006)

Then if we go back to the beginning, it would appear that the F4F derivative FM-2 could, at the least, hold its own against the 109G, even when caught at a disadvantage, i.e., on the receiving end of an attack and outnumbered. 

I would always caution against drawing a conclusion based on mere flight performance data. It is not so unusual to find that the results are not always what one might expect. 

Rich


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2006)

R Leonard said:


> Then if we go back to the beginning, it would appear that the F4F derivative FM-2 could, at the least, hold its own against the 109G, even when caught at a disadvantage, i.e., on the receiving end of an attack and outnumbered.



- With better trained pilots behind the controls, against rookies probably flying with a bomber-interceptor setup, then yeah, sure there'd be a good chance it could then hold its own.



R Leonard said:


> I would always caution against drawing a conclusion based on mere flight performance data. It is not so unusual to find that the results are not always what one might expect.



You said it Leonard  (And I bet Saburo Sakai would agree to)


----------



## davparlr (Mar 23, 2006)

When I read this topic, I said to myself "You've got to be kidding". While the F-4F-4 was a great old tub and allowed well trained Navy pilots to hold their own against the Japanese, the contempory 109E had a 40 mph top speed advantage and a 2000 ft ceiling advantage. The 109F, also a contempory, had a 70 mph top speed advantage. Manuverability (which the 109 also had) is important, but speed controls the fight parameters of entry and exit and this allows advantageous tactical strategies as the P-38 and F4U displayed in the Pacific sweeping the skies clean of more maneuverable Japanese planes. At the time of the F4F-4, spitfires were toe and nail against the 109 and the battle was pretty much of a draw (also remember, the aforementioned P-38s were struggling against the 109s). I highly doubt a British pilot (or anyone out there) would have been crazy enough to trade his spit (or even his hurricane!) for a F4F-4!


----------



## Henk (Mar 23, 2006)

Bf-109 for sure.

Henk


----------



## MacArther (Mar 23, 2006)

> would have been crazy enough to trade his spit (or even his hurricane!) for a F4F-4!



::raises hand:: I would have!


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 23, 2006)

And u'd have been dead as nuts....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2006)

davparlr said:


> When I read this topic, I said to myself "You've got to be kidding". While the F-4F-4 was a great old tub and allowed well trained Navy pilots to hold their own against the Japanese, the contempory 109E had a 40 mph top speed advantage and a 2000 ft ceiling advantage. The 109F, also a contempory, had a 70 mph top speed advantage. Manuverability (which the 109 also had) is important, but speed controls the fight parameters of entry and exit and this allows advantageous tactical strategies as the P-38 and F4U displayed in the Pacific sweeping the skies clean of more maneuverable Japanese planes. At the time of the F4F-4, spitfires were toe and nail against the 109 and the battle was pretty much of a draw (also remember, the aforementioned P-38s were struggling against the 109s). I highly doubt a British pilot (or anyone out there) would have been crazy enough to trade his spit (or even his hurricane!) for a F4F-4!



Good post and I agree with you. Welcome to the site as well.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 23, 2006)

davparlr said:


> When I read this topic, I said to myself "You've got to be kidding". While the F-4F-4 was a great old tub and allowed well trained Navy pilots to hold their own against the Japanese, the contempory 109E had a 40 mph top speed advantage and a 2000 ft ceiling advantage. The 109F, also a contempory, had a 70 mph top speed advantage. Manuverability (which the 109 also had) is important, but speed controls the fight parameters of entry and exit and this allows advantageous tactical strategies as the P-38 and F4U displayed in the Pacific sweeping the skies clean of more maneuverable Japanese planes. At the time of the F4F-4, spitfires were toe and nail against the 109 and the battle was pretty much of a draw (also remember, the aforementioned P-38s were struggling against the 109s). I highly doubt a British pilot (or anyone out there) would have been crazy enough to trade his spit (or even his hurricane!) for a F4F-4!



Welcome davparlr, you bring up some valid points, but the main thing here is despite the 40 mph speed advantage of the -109E the F4F turned better and had a lighter wing loading, in a traditional dogfight the F4F could give the E a run for its money. In a traditional WW2 dogfight that 40 mph advantage isn't going to mean much unless your running or chasing...

The -109 would have to stay "in the vertical" and did have the advantage of breaking off the battle at his choosing. As long as the F4F forced the -109 to slow down and fight on its terms, there was a challenge (despite the -109s LE slats). The 109F is a different story.....

A Spit or an F4F? I'd take the Spit anyday, even the 109. The point here is the F4F could present a challenge to the Me-109*E*


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2006)

Ill agree with you on that aswell FBJ. If the Wildcat was not a pushover for a Zero it was not going to be one for 109 either. It was a good solid fighter.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 24, 2006)

The F-4F was indeed a good solid fighter and performed heroically at Wake Island, Midway and Guadal Canal when the Navy, Marines and Army had their backs to the wall and were fighting greater forces of some the most experienced and capable aircrews in the world. The combination of F-4Fs and Naval and Marine pilots (and some Army pilots with their planes) are unsung heros who, practically alone, handed the superior Japanese forces their first defeats. I am sure the F-4F with one of these experienced Naval or Marine pilots would provide a handful for any fighter in WWII, but I still believe that speed and altitude equal high energy levels and with equally talented pilots, the one with the higher energy level has the options to defeat the other, assuming the air vehicles are reasonably close in capability. Otherwise, biplanes would rule.

While the F-4F did hold its own against he Zero, it did not do so well that the Navy did not go scurring for a better plane. And, I would suspect that there was more than a few F-4F pilots that were glad, and a bit relieved, to transfer to the F-6F.

I have just come across this site and was impressed with the level technical expertise displayed by, er, most of the participants. I have learned a lot, and I thought I knew everything! I just couldn't keep my mouth shut.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 24, 2006)

> And, I would suspect that there was more than a few F-4F pilots that were glad, and a bit relieved, to transfer to the F-6F.


And to the F4U...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 24, 2006)

davparlr said:


> I am sure the F-4F with one of these experienced Naval or Marine pilots would provide a handful for any fighter in WWII, but I still believe that speed and altitude equal high energy levels and with equally talented pilots, the one with the higher energy level has the options to defeat the other, assuming the air vehicles are reasonably close in capability. Otherwise, biplanes would rule.


I think its aircraft like the F4F and Hurricane where the energy levels eclipsed the wing loadings and turning abilities of the biplane, this it was left behind, but you're hitting the nail on the head.

As mentioned earlier, despite it's drawbacks, the F4F only suffered about 190 air-to-air losses while claiming over 900 aircraft (I'm estimating), but as you stated mainly because of pilot's skill.


----------



## R Leonard (Mar 24, 2006)

Not to be overly picky, but it is the F4F, not the F-4F and F6F, not the F-6F. Further, the Navy did not "go scurring for a better plane". The design work on the F4U started in 1938 and for the F6F in 1940. And before someone brings it up, no, the A6M recovered from the Aleutians had absolutely nothing to do with the development of the F6F.

Rich

Rich


----------



## Soren (Mar 24, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Welcome davparlr, you bring up some valid points, but the main thing here is despite the 40 mph speed advantage of the -109E the F4F turned better and had a lighter wing loading, in a traditional dogfight the F4F could give the E a run for its money. In a traditional WW2 dogfight that 40 mph advantage isn't going to mean much unless your running or chasing...
> 
> The -109 would have to stay "in the vertical" and did have the advantage of breaking off the battle at his choosing. As long as the F4F forced the -109 to slow down and fight on its terms, there was a challenge (despite the -109s LE slats). The 109F is a different story.....
> 
> A Spit or an F4F? I'd take the Spit anyday, even the 109. The point here is the F4F could present a challenge to the Me-109*E*



Absolutely correct, I fully agree.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2006)

R Leonard said:


> Not to be overly picky, but it is the F4F, not the F-4F and F6F, not the F-6F. Further, the Navy did not "go scurring for a better plane". The design work on the F4U started in 1938 and for the F6F in 1940. And before someone brings it up, no, the A6M recovered from the Aleutians had absolutely nothing to do with the development of the F6F.
> 
> Rich
> 
> Rich



I know it did not have anything to do with the development but didn't it have something to do with some minor changes that were made late in the development stage.


----------



## R Leonard (Mar 24, 2006)

Nope


----------



## davparlr (Mar 24, 2006)

Thought I had posted this but I guess I forgot to push the submit button.

Not to be overly picky, but it is the F4F, not the F-4F 

Sorry about the nomenclature error. I should know better. I guess old age is catching me. I remember, as a kid growing up in Pensacola, watching the Blue Angels practice from our back yard. The first planes I remember them having were F9F Cougars! I also remember seeing Navy blimps and yellow SNJs flying overhead.

The F4F with its Navy and Marine pilots have earned the rabid support it has received on these pages.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 24, 2006)

davparlr said:


> Thought I had posted this but I guess I forgot to push the submit button.
> 
> Not to be overly picky, but it is the F4F, not the F-4F
> 
> ...



Very cool! I remember the Angels when they had F11s - shows my age!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 24, 2006)

Man, you fellas must be ancient. 

 

Well, glad I could contribute so much to the thread. Interesting stuff, everyone.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 26, 2006)

Can I call you Grandpa?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 26, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Can I call you Grandpa?



NO! (lol)


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 27, 2006)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 27, 2006)




----------



## davparlr (Mar 27, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Can I call you Grandpa?



Yep, I have three!

I tried to attach a cool picture but I don't know if it works


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 28, 2006)

Nice pic davparlr!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2006)

That is a sweet pic.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 28, 2006)

I can remember the Hun and the F11


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 28, 2006)

Y'old bastard.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 28, 2006)

Great pic!


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 28, 2006)

yeah great


----------



## TenGunTerror (Jul 1, 2009)

As much as I want to believe the F4F could take it down, there is just no way it could.


----------



## Amsel (Jul 1, 2009)

If a 109 was in a wildcat pilots sights, it sure could.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 1, 2009)

TenGunTerror said:


> As much as I want to believe the F4F could take it down, there is just no way it could.



Well on at least one occasion it did.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2009)

TenGunTerror said:


> As much as I want to believe the F4F could take it down, there is just no way it could.



Sure it could. Why couldn't it? Buffalo's did it on many occasion. The Wildcat was a good aircraft. I would go as far as saying the 109 was a better aircraft, but the Wildcat could certainly hold its own.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jul 1, 2009)

TenGunTerror said:


> As much as I want to believe the F4F could take it down, there is just no way it could.



The 109 may have the better performance, but it would get killed if the F4F got the jump on him.


----------



## vanir (Jul 3, 2009)

I read about a surprising comparative exercise held somewhere in the Pacific Theatre (can't remember where, I'll have to look it up), between a Wildcat and a P-40, a bit of friendly interservice rivalry as I understand about who was going to be assigned island defence.
The Wildcat suprised everybody by winning 3 for 3 in mock combat over the field, no contest.


----------



## Elvis (Jul 7, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> If the F4F-3 or F4F-4 went into combat against a 109. who do you think would come out the victor?


I think that in most cases like this, _who's_ flying those planes are just as big, if not a bigger, factor than the actual performance of the aircraft mentioned.
Based on aircraft performance alone,though, I would think the 109 would probably win that fight.
The "-3" Wildcat had slightly better performance figures than its "-4" replacement, but the "-4" was better protrected, IIRC.
Personally, and based on aircraft performance alone, If I HAD to be flying a Wildcat in that fight, I'd opt for the FM-2.


Elvis


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jul 7, 2009)

Yup, will say that the pilot at the controls is a big factor. A Joe Foss in a -3 has a better chance then a rookie pilot who just completed his training.


----------



## Soren (Jul 8, 2009)

The F4F Wildcat is slightly more manueverable than the Bf-109, and we all know how dangerous the Zero could be to US fighters even in 44 to 45 if a skilled pilot was at the stick, and by that time US fighters were vastly superior in performance. So it definitely depends a lot on the pilot.


----------

