michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The F4F was manufactured until 1943, the FM was manufactured right up to the end of the war. They (primarily the FM) served in the Atlantic until the last day of the war.
The interesting thing about the F4F, was that it's design was nearly as old as the Bf109.
The F4F was manufactured until 1943, the FM was manufactured right up to the end of the war. They (primarily the FM) served in the Atlantic until the last day of the war.
The interesting thing about the F4F, was that it's design was nearly as old as the Bf109.[/QUOTE
I guess I shouldn't have called the 109 a latter type that was inaccurate on my part just when I think of a bf109g or k I often kinda think of them as later types due to there performance( a testimony to the ability of the design for capacity to be improved).
I probably should have used the fw 190 for my example. As best i can remember I think there were one or two classes between the types and the the f4f surprisingly held there own.
Yes I've always found it fascinating how F4fs seemed to be able to hold their own and in some cases even come out on top when pitted against later types that on paper at least doesn't look like they had any business being in the same sky with. The Bf109g for example.
Good point that at some point it's more productive to move on to a new design than upgrade an older one.I am not sure what you could do the F4F that could have improved it to any great extent.
While anything can be improved given enough effort (time and money) sometimes it is better to start over like with the F6F.
The R-1830 and R-1820 engines had both come to a temporary halt in development in 1941 and while both were later improved there was a 1-2 year gap (maybe more for the R-1830?) while other engines were worked on.
The later versions of both engines gained more power down low (or for take-off) than they did performance at altitude so new superchargers would be needed on addition to beefing up the engines and improving cooling.
The next jump in engine size/power is the R-2600 and that is what started the whole F6F development story. Grumman thought it was better to start over than try to modify the F4F to take the R-2600.
Good point that at some point it's more productive to move on to a new design than upgrade an older one.
Just a question that has bothered me for a long time pertaining to the Wildcat, the Fm2 had a fairly substantial increase in horsepower( 200 hp i think) and very little increase in weight yet the speed given for the Fm2 is always about the same as the F4f, around 320 to 330. This doesn't seem possible. There's a few of you guys on here that seem to know more than most of the books or articles on the internet ive read so just wondering if anyone here knows if this is accurate.
Sorry in my last post I didn't mean to gloss over what you said about drag as a limiting factor in top speed for the Fm2 I guess I just got focused on the supercharger dynamic for a bit.The greater power gave the FM2 a much better low and medium altitude climb rate.
It had a greater initial climb than any F6F or F4U-1/2. I read somewhere (about 30 yr. ago)
that its low speed acceleration surpassed the Corsairs. However there is always the
drag limited issue. The FM2 reached its limit at around 330 mph and it was going to
take a considerable amount of power to push that speed significantly. Wind resistance
is your answer.
Nothing to be sorry for what-so-ever. It is a great thing that we are all ableSorry in my last post I didn't mean to gloss over what you said about drag as a limiting factor in top speed for the Fm2 I guess I just got focused on the supercharger dynamic for a bit.
It had a greater initial climb than any F6F or F4U-1/2.
It is the "C" that made that 2800hp from 2800 cubic inches and it needed a turbo charger 100/130 fuel and water injection to do it.
There is a test saying they could but the test doesn't say if it was approved for service use or not.IIRC didn't the -59 and -63 "B" series engines found in later P-47Ds produce around 2800hp when boosted to 70" Hg while using 104/150 fuel and ADI?
There is a test saying they could but the test doesn't say if it was approved for service use or not.
P 47D Performance Test Using 44-1 Fuel
It does say there were cooling problems and climbs had to limited to short periods of time (without saying how short?)
The R-2800C as used in the P-47M and N was approved at 2800hp for service use. It ran 100rpm faster than the -59 and -63 "B" series engines and had much better finning on the cylinder heads and cylinder barrels and required something like 10% less cooling air for the same power (?)
It was also rated at 72in of manifold pressure.