SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Wow. I never realized how large the Wildcat is. I've seen them before but never side by side with a Mustang. I was usually looking for the B-17s anyway.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Wow. I never realized how large the Wildcat is. I've seen them before but never side by side with a Mustang. I was usually looking for the B-17s anyway.Hellcat's little brother. Too small to do this or that. Makes the Wildcat sound downright petite. Put it next to a Mustang, though...
Faster/better performing when?
Any major changes are going to cause lost production in 1941-42-early 43
Possibly but the F5F did next to nothing about the powerplant/problem. Used the same engine/s as the Brewster F2A-2/3 and a number of other aircraft.When is the major question.
If Grumman and/or USN really want to have the best possible F4F, something needs to be axed. Probably the F5F/XP-50 projetcs - lot of effort and resources invested, for no actual gain. Decision for that change needs to be in effect by some time of 1938?
These two aircraft were taking resources away from Grumman, the resources that could've been invested into improving the F4F.Possibly but the F5F did next to nothing about the powerplant/problem. Used the same engine/s as the Brewster F2A-2/3 and a number of other aircraft.
Not sure about the XP-50 but that might have been trying to repackage the B-17 powerplant?
It doesn't really matter what Grumman does powerwise with the F4F as they are not going to get better engines to power it (F4F with a Packard Merlin?)
Which means maybe a new, skinny low drag fuselage for the F4F and that needs new production jigs and fixtures? delaying production when?
But they didn't perform as well at they got into the higher teens. The difference got greater when they got into the 20s.The FM2 (late 1943) was the faster, better performing version of the F4F and it took that long to evolve the needed aircooled radial engines. The F4F-3/4 A/B ( Martlet) variants that used lightweight single stage engines had a nominally higher power to weight ratio and did perform a bit better at low altitude in USN testing:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-02135.pdf (see page 3, paragraph 5)
How much do you want to delay things?These two aircraft were taking resources away from Grumman, the resources that could've been invested into improving the F4F.
Something might've been done with wheel well covers, as well as more thought-out exit from the intercoolers - add that on the nip & tuck suggested above by different forum members and the 4-gun F4F will be faster by 20-25 mph?
Skinny F4F = all new aircraft IMO. Especially if the V-1650 is thinkered about.
It will be P&W that is supposed to supply engines of better power; granted, something more complicated, like R-2180+turbo will require that Grumman does it job.
What Grumman can take a look power-wise is taking a page from NACA experiments with individual exhausts from late 1941.
I'm sacrificing the 2-engined Grumman fighters, so all hands (bar the ones working on Avenger) go to work on perfecting the F4F in 1938-41.How much do you want to delay things?
Attaching doors for the landing gear?
Possible but the F4F used hand cranked landing gear to begin with. How much more complication and how many more cranks in the wheel?
You also don't get quite the speed benefit on slower airplanes. You get a percentage increase not a flat 5 or 8mph increase.
P&W had figured this out but not until 1943 which is a little late.
How much do you want to delay things?
And I have no idea what the Navy was thinking with some of their requirements.
View attachment 745544
Prototype F4F-3 had four windows in the bottom of the fuselage and production F4F-3 and most F4F-4s had 2 (one each side) and they disappeared on the FM-2s.
Now this meant that the pilot could look down but the fuel tank was just about inline with the windows so this meant that fuselage had to be fat enough for the cockpit and fuel tanks (one behind the other) AND enough space for the Pilot to look down past his seat and the fuel tank and through the windows.
Attaching doors for the landing gear?
Possible but the F4F used hand cranked landing gear to begin with. How much more complication and how many more cranks in the wheel?
View attachment 745545
You also don't get quite the speed benefit on slower airplanes. You get a percentage increase not a flat 5 or 8mph increase.
View attachment 745546
P&W had figured this out but not until 1943 which is a little late. Note that the person doing the labeling seems to have forgotten about the intercoolers.
You are not gaining all that much.I'm sacrificing the 2-engined Grumman fighters, so all hands (bar the ones working on Avenger) go to work on perfecting the F4F in 1938-41.
Attach them on the wing/fuselage junction.
That weigh how much?Use electric motors.
Which set up?NACA figured the benefit of individual exhaust stacks on a radial by the time Pearl harbor was attacked.
I will not get the perfect F4F, at least not on such short notice.And sometimes it doesn't matter what Grumman was working on if P&W and Wright are not completing their parts of the system. Or if something that the NACA was working on is "perfected" a couple of weeks after production tooling is completed on the existing component. Do you want it perfect or do you want it now?
Yes it can be done, but should you?
That weigh how much?
Which set up?
The NACA tested several set ups much like the set ups used on the A-20 and B-25. They helped at top speed, they hurt at cruise speeds (14 little humps/bumps sticking out into the slipstream.)
Unfortunately some of these time tables require engines that either were never built or were at least contemplated and either didn't work or never made it through testing.Don't tend to wade much into US stuff, but re the F4F, minimum mods to increase effectiveness: slipper or drop tanks by spring 1942, possibly keep 4 guns on the F4F-4. I too was thinking of the R-2000 engine to increase power but it seems it's to late, can this engine be ready earlier? If it can be ready earlier, if nothing else this should help the heavier F4F-4 at least maintain roughly the same speed/climb as the F4F-3? Put on it the same supercharger as used to the R-1830-86 or whatever mod used on the F4F.
A more roundabout way centers on the F5F which was a complete waste of time indeed. First, instead of the F5F Grumman should get a contract for the TBF, all else being equal this should fly say mid 1940, with deliveries by late 1941. So that means most VT squadrons fly TBF by Midway.
Next, they receive a contract for the F6F with the R-2600 which will fly say summer 1941, deliveries by late 1942 (may or may not be in time for Santa Cruz). Not quite sure of the speed with the R-2600, but if a combat ready F6F-1 can do 360 mph, that's a big jump from the 320 mph or so of the F4F-4, and the Zeros will be even more hard pressed than in OTL from late 1942. Perhaps keep 4 guns on this ATL F6F-1 to reduce the weight a bit for the weaker R-2600.
The F6F-3 then proceeds as planned with the R-2800, with the benefit that the production line is already well estabilished, so they might appear in combat slightly earlier, say summer 1943.
Seems like November 1st of 1942.