Can we make a faster better performing Wildcat in 1942?

[RCAFson]

Can we make a faster, better performing Wildcat? Yes, and to make a long story short; the USN should have just picked up the phone and placed an order with Canadian Car & Foundry for Hawker Sea Hurricane Mk XIIs...via reverse lend lease!
Merlin V-1650-1
4 x .5in BMGs (300rpg)
2 wing mounted 58USG drop tanks

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I really don't know why anyone made anything other than Hurricanes during the whole war. On either side.

 

[SaparotRob]

P-39

 

[Admiral Beez]

What's the slowest, worst performing Wildcat?

 

[Shortround6]

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?

New fin and rudder, squared off horizontal tail surfaces, 4 ft more wing span and squared off.

Note the fatter (taller) rear fuselage and the much higher mounted horizontal tail surfaces.
They lost the prop spinner before production or very early on.
Please note that they still have two guns in the Fuselage.

as a side note.

Please note that all of the F3Fs had retracting tailwheels. I have no idea why they stopped.

 

[Shortround6]

Faster F4F in 1940-41

Well it was about 20-22mph faster at 12,000ft
At 18,000ft ???

 

[SaparotRob]

Wonderful series of pics.

 

[Shortround6]

It looks like the XF4F-2 was powered by a P&W R-1830-66 engine (at least according to "Grumman Aircraft since 1929" by Francillon)
which was a single stage single speed engine of 1050hp take-off and 900hp (normal) at 12,000ft according the P&W. Except that so far I can't find in the P&W record what engine was used in the XF4F-2. The -66 is supposed to have been rated for 100 octane but it's power levels are closer to engines rated on 87 octane fuel.
AS to timing, most of the P-36s were built with -13 engines with very similar power ratings but were rated on 91/93 octane fuel. I have no idea if the AAC and the Navy were using the same fuel in 1937/38.

The -76 and -86 engines have just about the same ratings, or exactly the same ratings, with the two stage superchargers, however there were problems with the -76 engines which are rarely (?) described except for references to mismatch of the airflow between the superchargers and rumbling in the ducts. In any case they came out with the -86 fairly quickly.

the F4F is a rather odd airplane by WW II standards. See the performance charts here.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4.pdf

While the planes was good for 330mph (maybe) at 18,800-19,000ft it was good for about 300-310 at 12,000ft and it was under 290mph at around 6000ft. Or about 20mph faster than a Fulmar II. Back to high altitude it was good for 300mph at 25,000ft (or bit better?)

It's two stage engine allowed it to perform at least moderately well (for 1940/41) over a wide range of altitudes, over a bit longer range than most allied or enemy fighter (except Japanese) while carrying protection and a fairly heavy armament ( I said heavy, I am not arguing about effectiveness at this point).
A Wildcat was carrying 802-865lbs of guns and ammo (full load and depending on 4 gun or 6 gun) compared to a Spitfire IX carrying 650lbs. Wildcat was also carrying more internal fuel.

The US could have made some changes in 1940-41-42 simply by not insisting that each and every fighter plane carry a trailer load of guns and ammo

Trailer for the ammo load in a 4 gun Wildcat. Without boxes or crates.

 

[yulzari]

At that point the USN was looking to the British escort carrier experience and in Oct 1941 the US naval attaché in Britain reported on the experience of HMS Audacity on the Gibraltar run with an air group of 6 fixed wing Martlet I. (Audacity only completed her conversion in June, landed her first Martlet on 10 July and escorted her first convoy in Sept thereby proving the concept of the escort carrier with a fighter complement as being far superior to the CAM ships).

The Royal Navy were wanting escort carriers rather than Catapult Aircraft Merchant ships but the CAM ships were a quick and dirty solution using existing catapults, ships and aeroplanes as an interim. My stepdaughter's grandfather was a CAM Hurricane pilot.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The Royal Navy were wanting escort carriers rather than Catapult Aircraft Merchant ships but the CAM ships were a quick and dirty solution using existing catapults, ships and aeroplanes as an interim. My stepdaughter's grandfather was a CAM Hurricane pilot.

Hat's off to that brave man. It's too bad they didn't have a seaplane fighter available for that role, then the pilot would at least have a better chance to survive the landing and recovery, even if the plane didn't.
They did have the NP3 available ... probably enough to run off a FW 200, or at least keep it high enough that it couldn't do so much harm... that's really the only Allied seaplane that could plausibly work as an emergency fighter. The Japanese had the F1M and the Germans had the Arado 196.

 

[mack8]

On the theme of floatplanes, found this.

Secret Files :The Spitfire floatplanes

The German invasion of Norway in April 1940, and the now seemingly unstoppable advance of her armies across Europe began, it seemed likely that any confrontation in the north of Europe would, in all likeliness, be a sea one. The current British naval fighters in service in 1940 were either...

www.solentsky.org

Didn't realized the Floatfire was so fast. Certainly i always found the CAM idea hairbrained, wasting the aircraft and endangering the pilot like that. By 1941 when the danger of invasion faded surely they could have found a dozen or two Spitfires to convert to floatfighters.
But we digress.

 

[Admiral Beez]

On the theme of floatplanes, found this.

Secret Files :The Spitfire floatplanes

The German invasion of Norway in April 1940, and the now seemingly unstoppable advance of her armies across Europe began, it seemed likely that any confrontation in the north of Europe would, in all likeliness, be a sea one. The current British naval fighters in service in 1940 were either...

www.solentsky.org

Didn't realized the Floatfire was so fast. Certainly i always found the CAM idea hairbrained, wasting the aircraft and endangering the pilot like that. By 1941 when the danger of invasion faded surely they could have found a dozen or two Spitfires to convert to floatfighters.
But we digress.

I wonder how slow the Roc floatplane was.

 

[Snautzer01]

I wonder how slow the Roc floatplane was.

View attachment 745843

This is as fast as you will ever see it. Flat out full power.

 

[ThomasP]

In my the notes I have the Vmax for the Roc floatplane as ~190 mph.

 

[mack8]

I was reading the Roc floatplane could do the whole of 193 mph. Good performance, for 1930...

 

[Admiral Beez]

In my the notes I have the Vmax for the Roc floatplane as ~190 mph.

Is there any slower monoplane, single engined floatplane?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Is there any slower monoplane, single engined floatplane?

Hmm…. maybe the Vought OS2U Kingfisher?

 

[don4331]

Hat's off to that brave man. It's too bad they didn't have a seaplane fighter available for that role, then the pilot would at least have a better chance to survive the landing and recovery, even if the plane didn't.
They did have the NP3 available ... probably enough to run off a FW 200, or at least keep it high enough that it couldn't do so much harm... that's really the only Allied seaplane that could plausibly work as an emergency fighter. The Japanese had the F1M and the Germans had the Arado 196.

7 mph performance difference of the NP3 probably isn't enough to run off a Condor. (Hurricanes with 80 mph speed differential were hard pressed to catch them).

Spitfire (with contra rotating propeller) would have been my 1st choice. Supermarine certainly had enough experience with fast floatplanes

Fw200s sinking >40k tons of shipping/month (365k tons in 8 months) and leading u-boats to more required an immediate solution.

Hats off to the CAM pilot.

 

[SaparotRob]

Great point about Supermarine and fast float planes. I embarrassingly forgot about that. Agree with you about the CAM pilots.

 

[RCAFson]

Is there any slower monoplane, single engined floatplane?

The 1939/40 variants (-1, -2) of the AR196 were likely slower. The 1941 -3 variant was approximately the same speed at 194mph.

Blackburn Aircraft since 1909 states the Roc Floatplane max speed as 193mph at 10K ft vs 194mph for the AR196-3 at 3300ft (Warplanes of the Luftwaffe).