carpenoctem1689
Airman 1st Class
- 285
- Sep 10, 2005
yeah, i know..im sorry about that, my un-enlightened freind i have over, doesnt know much and took it upon himself to post..at my expense, i apologize.
P-36, P-35 or Wildcat
- Thread starter d_bader
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
evangilder
"Shooter"
That being said though, the P-35 doesn't match up too well to the other 2. But I am looking only at soe minor stats. I don't know what it was like to fly, nor have I ever met anyone who flew one.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
There was an export version of one flying around for a few years. I heard it was great to fly, real stable airplane.
The P-35 was good for formation flying pictures, visiting 1930s airshows and WW2 movie posters......
The P-35 was good for formation flying pictures, visiting 1930s airshows and WW2 movie posters......
cheddar cheese
Major General
I went for the P-35, because the Re-2000 was based on it and that was a great plane.
See, I can weeble in Italian planes anywhere!
See, I can weeble in Italian planes anywhere!
HealzDevo
Staff Sergeant
I think the Wildcat being used for the greatest part and being available in numbers.
Dragontech64
Airman
I have to go with the Wildcat as well, still being built and in service long after the Seversky and the Curtiss were memories.
Dragontech64
Airman
I have never met anyone who flew them either, however, Jackie Cochrane did well flying a modified, civilian version of the P-35 in air races before the war. I have heard that they were nimble, though with good stability and good pilot comfort. In wargames the P-35 beat the P-36 and I have heard more than once that the first enemy aircraft shot down by the Americans in WW2 was by a P-35, but then I have heard the same of the P-36 and SBD Dauntless, so there may be some bias on that bit of history. I would think though that the large, raised greenhouse canopy of the P-35 would give better visability than the P-36 had.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
If you compare the P36 with the F4F3 you will find that the Wildcat had even more of a performance edge. The 3 only had 4 guns but with a huge ammo load(for that day) did not have self sealing tanks(Idoubt if the P36 had them either) and no folding wings. It was much lighter than the F4F4 and was a pretty good hot rod. The Navy pilots hated to see it degraded by all the weight.
Navy pilots who flew both preferred the -3 over the -4 because it carried the same amount of ammo over 4 guns vice 6. They had more firing time and the -3 had a batter rate of climb over the -4. The quintesential wild cat was the FM-2 which went back to a 4 gun config and a bigger engine. Still had top hand crank the landing gear though.
otftch
Staff Sergeant
The Wildcat because Grumman made it.
Ed
Ed
R Leonard
Staff Sergeant
The F4F-3 came from the factory without either armor or self-sealing tanks. Both of these were available in retrofit kits and were installed in the line squadrons aircraft. I believe the Pacific Fleet squadrons got their kits pre-7 December 41. VF-42, the first Atlantic VF to go west was equipped after 7 Dec.
The -3 also was originally equipped with the telescopic sight which was also replaced, although most of that occurred in the late summer of 1941.
Most assuredly, I'd vote F4F over the P-35 or P-36, but what would you expect.
P-36s, actually the H75A export version, and F4F-4s did meet in combat over North Africa with the F4F coming out ahead.
Since I detest typing the same stuff twice, quoting in full my post of 07-20-2005, 11:32 PM,
#29 of http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...e-mk-iib-vs-grumman-f4f-4-wildcat-1550-2.html
A few of the Japanese planes shot down at Pearl Harbor were shot down by P-36 drivers. One was creditred to an SBD rear gunner. There wer no F4Fs in action at Pearl Harbor. I believe there was 1 victory credited to a P-35 in the Philippines as well as 2 credits awarded to PAF P-26's.
Rich
The -3 also was originally equipped with the telescopic sight which was also replaced, although most of that occurred in the late summer of 1941.
Most assuredly, I'd vote F4F over the P-35 or P-36, but what would you expect.
P-36s, actually the H75A export version, and F4F-4s did meet in combat over North Africa with the F4F coming out ahead.
Since I detest typing the same stuff twice, quoting in full my post of 07-20-2005, 11:32 PM,
#29 of http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...e-mk-iib-vs-grumman-f4f-4-wildcat-1550-2.html
A few of the Japanese planes shot down at Pearl Harbor were shot down by P-36 drivers. One was creditred to an SBD rear gunner. There wer no F4Fs in action at Pearl Harbor. I believe there was 1 victory credited to a P-35 in the Philippines as well as 2 credits awarded to PAF P-26's.
Rich
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Thank you Rich for the info. I may be mistaken but I think I read the first LW a/c shot down by a US plane was a FW Condor shot down by a Wildcat.
drgondog
Major
The P-36 was a relatively good airplane and probably equivalent to the F4F-3 so it might boil down to personal preference.
The F4F had a better WWII but in part to the P-40 being a superior a/c for the US~Army than the P-36, and was buying the P-40 to replace P-36 when the Navy had no immediate replacement for the F4F (although one of the Greats was on the drawing board - F4U).
The Poll might be better served as P-40, which replaced the P-36 pre war and was first line fighter for USAAF, versus the F4F (any version)
Otherwise the F4F
The F4F had a better WWII but in part to the P-40 being a superior a/c for the US~Army than the P-36, and was buying the P-40 to replace P-36 when the Navy had no immediate replacement for the F4F (although one of the Greats was on the drawing board - F4U).
The Poll might be better served as P-40, which replaced the P-36 pre war and was first line fighter for USAAF, versus the F4F (any version)
Otherwise the F4F
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Wildcat without a question...
R Leonard
Staff Sergeant
The Royal Navy was to employ the F4F in combat long before the US Navy. FAA Martlets (export F4F's, model G-36A's, originally earmarked for France but transferred to the Royal Navy after the collapse of France) were active almost a year be fore Pearl Harbor. First air-to-air victory was on 25 December 1940; flying out of Hatson, Lieut. Carter and Sub-Lieut. Parke from 804 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. BHM Kendall, RN, commanding) intercepted a Ju-88 over Scapa Flow and shot it down near Loch Skail.
Regarding the F4Fs during operation Torch - I wonder if these planes were equipped with water injection. If so it would not be totally fair to compare them with late 1941 Wildcats.
I also remember that there were some british tests which found that the P36 had far better high speed handling than the Spitfire Mk1. So for 1940 - 42 It seems that the P36 was not such a bad plane.
I also remember that there were some british tests which found that the P36 had far better high speed handling than the Spitfire Mk1. So for 1940 - 42 It seems that the P36 was not such a bad plane.
R Leonard
Staff Sergeant
F4F-4s, the fighter flown by the USN in Operation Torch, did not have water injection, no F4F-4 ever did . . . first front line Navy fighters with water injection were the F6F and the F4U.
The F4F-4 was, in fact, heavier than the F4F-3, was less maneuverable, carried 6, vice 4, guns but less ammunition, better factory installed armor and fuel system protection, and, since there was no increase in engine power to offset weight increases, was marginally slower in speed and climbing.
So, truth be known, especially amongst all the F4F-3 and F4F-4 drivers I've ever known (that is, those who flew both in combat) the -3 was a better performer. I guess that's the opposite of what you wanted to hear . . .
Oh, well.
Rich
Could be that I mixed it up with tests about water injection I've seen for the FM-2:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/fm-2-16169.pdf
So in operation Torch it were F4-F4 6 gun models and not the newer FM-2s ?
And just for my knowledge - was water injection only tested with FM-2s or also put inoperational service?
R Leonard
Staff Sergeant
No, all the Wildcats in Operation Torch were F4F-4s.
F4F-3s, -4s, and FM-1s used a two stage/two speed supercharger. F4F-3As used single stage/two speed supercharger. Early FM-2s used a single stage/two speed supercharger and later versions had water injection:
F4F-3
Early - Pratt Whitney R-1830-76 Twin Wasp (two stage/two speed supercharger); 1200 hp; four .50 cal.
Later - Pratt Whitney R-1830-86 Twin Wasp (two stage/two speed supercharger);1200 hp; four .50 cal.
F4F-3A
Pratt Whitney R-1830-90 (single stage/two speed supercharger); 1200 hp; four .50 cal.
F4F-4
Pratt Whitney R-1830-86 Twin Wasp (two stage/two speed supercharger); 1200 hp; six .50 cal.
FM-1
Pratt Whitney R-1830-86 (two stage/two speed supercharger); 1200 hp; four .50 cal.
FM-2
Early - Wright R-1820-56 (single stage supercharger); 1350 hp; four .50 cal.
Later - Wright R-1820-56WA (single stage supercharger and water injection); 1350 hp; four .50 cal.
First FM-1 flew on 31 August 1942. FM-1s operated during the invasion of Tarawa, 20 November 1943 in VC-39 off USS Liscombe Bay and in VC-41 off USS Corregidor. VC-39s fighter section was a mixed group, with both F4F-4s (5) and FM-1s (11). VC-41s fighter section was all FM-1s (12).
The XF4F-8 (prototype for the FM-2) first flew on 8 November 1942. The first combat for the FM-2 was in the invasion of Kwajalein, beginning 29 January 1944. VC-7 off USS Manila Bay operated 16 FM-2s; whilst VC-66 (USS Nassau) fighter section consisted of 14 FM-1; VC-63 (USS Natoma Bay, 12 FM-1; VC-33 (USS Coral Sea), 9 F4F-4 and 5 FM-1; and VC-41 (USS Corregidor), 3 F4F-4 and 6 FM-1.
VC-7 received its first FM-2s in November 1943 while at Ream Field; the aircraft locator report for 9 November 43 notes the squadron with 2 FM-2 and 12 FM-1 and is the only Pacific squadron noted as possessing FM–2s at that time. In the same report, on the other side of the continent, USS Bogue's VC-19, at Pungo NAAF, shows 9 FM-1 and 1 FM-2. The 2 November 43 report, and the first time the FM-2 shows up in any squadron inventory, has USS Croatan's VC-6, just down the road from Pungo at Fentress NAAF, with 9 FM-1 and 1 FM-2.
FM-2s were credited with 428/37/33.5 for 13 losses starting with it's operational debut in January 44.
Not sure at which FM-2 bu no the switch to water injection was made . . . might take a little research to figure that out. However, looking at the report you provided, I see that the bu no of the airplane tested was 16169 which falls in the 15952 to 16791 bu no block of FM-2s, which, oddly enough is the first block of bu nos for that type . . . all 840 of them . . . right at the 218th in line. Of course, there were some 4,559 FM-2s produced after bu no 16169. I'll look around and see what I can find.
Rich
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Interesting F4F fact the F4F7 of which 21 were built, was a long range photo recon a/c. It carried 685 gallons of fuel, 555 gallons in a wet wing.
