- Thread starter
-
- #21
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Canadians may have used their Grummans in WW2 combat had the opportunity arose.I did some checking, because I was pretty sure that the XF4F-1 was either a Wildcat or did not have a name at the time. Sure enough, the Grumman Gulfhawk was a similar but different plane.
From the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum website:
"One of the most exciting aerobatic aircraft of the 1930s and '40s, the Grumman Gulfhawk II was built for retired naval aviator and air show pilot Al Williams. As head of the Gulf Oil Company's aviation department, Williams flew in military and civilian air shows around the country, performing precision aerobatics and dive-bombing maneuvers to promote military aviation during the interwar years.
The sturdy civilian biplane, with its strong aluminum monocoque fuselage and Wright Cyclone engine, nearly matched the Grumman F3F standard Navy fighter, which was operational at the time. It took its orange paint scheme from Williams' Curtiss 1A Gulfhawk, also in the Smithsonian's collection. Williams personally piloted the Gulfhawk II on its last flight in 1948 to Washington's National Airport."
View attachment 661583
Both the Spitfire and the Bf-109 entered service several years before the war started, so their predecessors cannot really be said to have "just missed" the war. Actually, I cannot find a simple statement as to what plane the Spitfire replaced in front-line RAF service, except for one source that says the Spitfire superseded the Hurricane, and of course the Hurricane continued to serve after the war started and was no slouch.
But I'm still curious; what was Britain's front-line fighter before the Spitfire (or Hurricane)? I'm guessing the Bf-109 didn't really have one, since the Luftwaffe was being rebuilt from scratch during the 1930s, and its "predecessor" would have been something left over from The Great War. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong about that.
HiBoth the Spitfire and the Bf-109 entered service several years before the war started, so their predecessors cannot really be said to have "just missed" the war. Actually, I cannot find a simple statement as to what plane the Spitfire replaced in front-line RAF service, except for one source that says the Spitfire superseded the Hurricane, and of course the Hurricane continued to serve after the war started and was no slouch.
But I'm still curious; what was Britain's front-line fighter before the Spitfire (or Hurricane)? I'm guessing the Bf-109 didn't really have one, since the Luftwaffe was being rebuilt from scratch during the 1930s, and its "predecessor" would have been something left over from The Great War. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong about that.
Did the Fury and the rest see any substantial action in the BoB? What about by '42?Front-line fighter types before the Hurricane and Spitfire were the Hawker Fury, Hawker Demon, Gloster Gauntlet, and Gloster Gladiator. All except the Demon were still in frontline use at the outbreak of WW2 and so cannot be considered to have "missed" the conflict. Prior to those, we had the Armstrong Whitworth Siskin Bristol Bulldog but they both pretty much out of service by 1937-1938.
Did the Fury and the rest see any substantial action in the BoB? What about by '42?
If the Buffalo wasn't available perhaps the Gauntlets and Furys go to Malaya in 1940-41.Did the Fury and the rest see any substantial action in the BoB? What about by '42?
Depends on what you would have it face. A few P-36Cs fought at Pearl Harbor vs A6M2 Zeros. A few export models fought for China against A5Ms (Japan's previous naval fighter). Mohawks (P-36Cs exported as kits and assembled in India) for a short while were the RAF's only defense in Eastern India and a few encounters vs Ki.27s. While outclassed by the Zero, Hawk 75s (P-36s) stood technologically even vs the same generation of Japanese monoplane fighters.Going with this thread, I do wonder how the P-36, had we continued to build a bunch more of the C model, might have done in the Pacific. The larger engine and additional wing weapons would have made it better than the A model I'd think.
More P-36s means fewer P-40s.Going with this thread, I do wonder how the P-36, had we continued to build a bunch more of the C model, might have done in the Pacific. The larger engine and additional wing weapons would have made it better than the A model I'd think.
Where would they put the nose armorTrue enough. Perhaps pay Bell to build P-36's instead of P-39s?
Where would they put the nose armor
I believe the successor to the Gulfhawk 2 was the G-58A, a civilian version of the Bearcat. There were no provisions in the wings for guns or cannons.
View attachment 661585
I believe that is Al Williams at the controls.
Photo: San Diego Air and Space Museum Archives
The P-36 was a contemporary of the Bf109 and in French service, accounted for more Luftwaffe losses during the Battle of France than any other type.While at a technologic disadvantage, they were not mere pushovers.
The USN/USMC came very close to using the F3F in combat, as it was in frontline squadrons until 1941.