Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

F4F - 7 recon

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> F4F - 7 recon Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
F4F - 7 recon - 5/27/2010 5:04:37 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		This plane looks great. It has the range of a B24. I was just about to put a squadron of them on the Long Island for some deep Japanese base snooping. Then I noticed that it is not carrier capable... Best laid plans....

Anyone have any info as to why? Looks like a vanilla wildcat with extra fuel tanks to me. Seems like it should easily fly off of a carrier. Well, waddle off of a carrier....

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
Post #: 1
RE: F4F - 7 recon - 5/27/2010 5:07:51 PM   
Grollub


Posts: 6674
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Lulea, Sweden
Status: offline 		I guess it's because it had non-folding wings to allow for more fuel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F4F_Wildcat#F4F-7

_____________________________

“Not mastering metaphores is like cooking pasta when the train is delayed"

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 2
RE: F4F - 7 recon - 5/27/2010 5:18:14 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		Well, I doubt that would stop it as some fixed wings could fly off carriers. But the perhaps you lead me to the right spot. An extra 555 gallons of fuel (over 1500 pounds) would add a tremdendous amount of weight. I doubt that the fully loaded wildcat could get off of a short flight deck or any flight deck for that matter.

< Message edited by crsutton -- 5/27/2010 5:21:17 PM >

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Grollub)
Post #: 3
RE: F4F - 7 recon - 5/27/2010 5:28:07 PM   
Grollub


Posts: 6674
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Lulea, Sweden
Status: offline 		Sounds plausible.

_____________________________

“Not mastering metaphores is like cooking pasta when the train is delayed"

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 4
RE: F4F - 7 recon - 5/27/2010 5:44:06 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
The F4F-7 was carrier capable and one was allocated to each CAG in 1942. Soon withdrawn due to operational issues and production limited to only 20 or so. No idea why it is not carrier capable in stock, but there is always the editor.

(in reply to Grollub)
Post #: 5
RE: F4F - 7 recon - 5/27/2010 5:52:41 PM   
Misconduct


Posts: 1864
Joined: 2/18/2009
From: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Status: offline 		I loved using F4F-7's till I accidently put their Alt at 6,000 feet over Rabaul and lost an entire squadron

_____________________________

ASUS Maximus IV Extreme-Z Intel Core I7 2800k Corsair Hydro Heatsink Corsair Vengeance DD3 24GB EVGA GTX 580 Western Digital 1.5TB Raid 0 Windows 7

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 6
RE: F4F - 7 recon - 5/27/2010 6:21:04 PM   
chesmart


Posts: 908
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Malta
Status: offline 		wrong forum

(in reply to Misconduct)
Post #: 7
RE: F4F - 7 recon - 5/27/2010 6:55:02 PM   
JohnDillworth


Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline 		Yow, It would be like flying in a gas can. They would burn nicely if a zero caught up with it. No was those tanks are armored. I wonder how many hours it could stay up for? And frankly, what did these guys do if they had to take a leak?



_____________________________

Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly

(in reply to chesmart)
Post #: 8
RE: F4F - 7 recon - 5/27/2010 7:09:02 PM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline 		Taking a leak is no problem, they have a relief tube for that. It the old #2 that is a problem.

_____________________________


(in reply to JohnDillworth)
Post #: 9
RE: F4F - 7 recon - 5/27/2010 8:18:00 PM   
JohnDillworth


Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

Taking a leak is no problem, they have a relief tube for that. It the old #2 that is a problem.

I bet, turns out this puppy can stay aloft for 24 hours. I understand that "stimulants" were occasionally issued to bomber crews. Hoped they passed some to these pilots

_____________________________

Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 10
RE: F4F - 7 recon - 5/27/2010 8:49:54 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


The F4F-7 was carrier capable and one was allocated to each CAG in 1942. Soon withdrawn due to operational issues and production limited to only 20 or so. No idea why it is not carrier capable in stock, but there is always the editor.


I'm guessing it's because it's classified as a 'Recon'. Given the nice AE feature that any plane with a camera device can do the recon mission, I suppose classifying it as a 'Fighter' (with no guns!) might make it able to take the 'carrier capable' flag.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 11
RE: F4F - 7 recon - 5/27/2010 9:23:34 PM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


The F4F-7 was carrier capable and one was allocated to each CAG in 1942. Soon withdrawn due to operational issues and production limited to only 20 or so. No idea why it is not carrier capable in stock, but there is always the editor.


I would love to see an allied player have the F4F-7 carrier capable. Snoop one of my islands or Tfs and I'm going to be pretty sure there is a carrier nearby.

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 12
RE: F4F - 7 recon - 5/27/2010 9:28:07 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		bah....just send in a destroyer instead.



here karrier karrier karrier........come attack meeeeee.

_____________________________


(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 13
RE: F4F - 7 recon - 5/27/2010 10:37:17 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


The F4F-7 was carrier capable and one was allocated to each CAG in 1942. Soon withdrawn due to operational issues and production limited to only 20 or so. No idea why it is not carrier capable in stock, but there is always the editor.


I would love to see an allied player have the F4F-7 carrier capable. Snoop one of my islands or Tfs and I'm going to be pretty sure there is a carrier nearby.

Chez



Yep, with the 25 hex radius that these puppys have, you will find that carrier fer sure.... Lets see, that's how many thousands of square miles?

And actually, 500 gallons of gas weighs in at about 3000 pounds not the 1500 that I quoted. If they used it on carriers I bet it did not fly with a full tank of gas. Cool plane anyways.

< Message edited by crsutton -- 5/27/2010 10:44:45 PM >

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 14
RE: F4F - 7 recon - 5/27/2010 10:45:03 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

And actually, 500 gallons of gas weighs in at about 3000 pounds not the 1500 that I quoted. If they used it on carriers I bet it did not fly with a full tank of gas.


Why not? No guns, no ammo. That's a fair amount of weight freed up.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 15
RE: F4F - 7 recon - 5/27/2010 11:25:55 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

And actually, 500 gallons of gas weighs in at about 3000 pounds not the 1500 that I quoted. If they used it on carriers I bet it did not fly with a full tank of gas.


Why not? No guns, no ammo. That's a fair amount of weight freed up.



Well the base weight of the plane was just under 6,000 pounds and the maximum takeoff weight is listed as 7,952 so you are really talking about a significant increase over the max takeoff weight. Even stripping out armor and guns a fully loaded 7 had to weigh in over 8,000 pounds. Not saying it would not fly but you are gonna need some runway to get up in the air. But even with a reduced load of gas it still would have had a pretty good range for carrier ops.

I am just speculating here as I don't really know.....

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 16
RE: F4F - 7 recon - 5/28/2010 1:15:23 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Me too, this is just an interesting tidbit to speculate about. If the take-off weight was really 7,952, then 6,000 + 3,000 exceeds that even for ground take-off. Are you quoting specifically F4F-7 specs or generic F4F specs? I'm thinking they must have "done things" to the '-7 to make it viable.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 17
RE: F4F - 7 recon - 5/28/2010 7:01:59 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


The F4F-7 was carrier capable and one was allocated to each CAG in 1942. Soon withdrawn due to operational issues and production limited to only 20 or so. No idea why it is not carrier capable in stock, but there is always the editor.


I would love to see an allied player have the F4F-7 carrier capable. Snoop one of my islands or Tfs and I'm going to be pretty sure there is a carrier nearby.

Chez



Now why didn't we mod that in... a recon flight on my carrier with an operational range of 25 hexes? I'll take that in a heartbeat. I think that it would help my campaign to keep you confused...

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 18
RE: F4F - 7 recon - 5/28/2010 11:57:20 AM   
Kadrin


Posts: 183
Joined: 5/5/2005
From: Orange, California
Status: offline 		There's a wonderful thing on most carriers called a catapult. I'm pretty sure they could launch a fully loaded F4F-7 with no problems, hell they launched P-47's off jeep carriers thanks to catapults, and we're even operating F4U's off jeep carriers in the Korean War.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 19
RE: F4F - 7 recon - 5/28/2010 1:03:21 PM   
timtom


Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline 		Gross w/ 685 gals 10328lbs. TO 1340ft/0kn vs 693ft/25kn.

< Message edited by timtom -- 5/28/2010 1:04:05 PM >

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to Kadrin)
Post #: 20
RE: F4F - 7 recon - 5/28/2010 1:22:03 PM   
Misconduct


Posts: 1864
Joined: 2/18/2009
From: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Status: offline 		Wow, thats more weight then a me109k4 with full load.

_____________________________

ASUS Maximus IV Extreme-Z Intel Core I7 2800k Corsair Hydro Heatsink Corsair Vengeance DD3 24GB EVGA GTX 580 Western Digital 1.5TB Raid 0 Windows 7

(in reply to timtom)
Post #: 21
RE: F4F - 7 recon - 5/28/2010 2:43:27 PM   
Panther Bait


Posts: 654
Joined: 8/30/2006
Status: offline 		Of course there would be the little problem of finding your own carrier after your 50 hex roundtrip mission. Even assuming that carrier can keep to its appointed schedule and arrive at the designated pickup point on time, I would think a recon plane flying over a 1000 miles and back again could get seriously lost pretty easily.

Mike


_____________________________

When you shoot at a destroyer and miss, it's like hit'in a wildcat in the ass with a banjo.

Nathan Dogan, USS Gurnard

(in reply to Misconduct)
Post #: 22
RE: F4F - 7 recon - 5/28/2010 2:55:42 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		I don't have my Lundstrom in front of me.....but IIRC, the F4F-7 was not exactly considered a sucess as it's prodigidous weight gain to hold all that extra fuel only exaserbated the F4F's weak points.

_____________________________


(in reply to Panther Bait)
Post #: 23
RE: F4F - 7 recon - 5/28/2010 4:01:14 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		Vectorsite definitely mentions it being carrier capable:

http://www.vectorsite.net/avwcat.html#m6

In early 1941, Grumman began work on an ultra-long-range photo-reconnaissance version of the Wildcat. An F4F-4 was extensively modified to this configuration, with nonfolding "wet" wings and distinctive twin "tailpipes" that were actually used for dumping excess fuel to lighten the aircraft for carrier deck landings. A single camera was installed behind the cockpit, an autopilot was fitted for long missions, and the armament and gunsight were deleted. The first such "F4F-7" performed its first flight on 30 December 1941.
The F4F-7 could carry a load of 2,596 liters (685 US gallons) of fuel, giving it a range of 5,950 kilometers (3,700 miles). A hundred were ordered but only 21 were delivered. In 1942, one flew across the US, coast to coast nonstop, in eleven hours. When the flight plan was filed, an Army air traffic controller called the Navy and said it looked as though there was a mistake. A Navy man replied: "The flight plan is correct. All Navy fighters have a 3,000 mile range." This was a record flight, but the F4F-7 was a secret and the record wasn't claimed.
The F4F-7s served in the Solomons but the actual need for an extremely long range reconnaissance fighter was slight. Those F4F-7s that were delivered were used for spares hulks, with some possibly modified back to a fighter specification.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 24
RE: F4F - 7 recon - 5/28/2010 5:12:44 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

Of course there would be the little problem of finding your own carrier after your 50 hex roundtrip mission. Even assuming that carrier can keep to its appointed schedule and arrive at the designated pickup point on time, I would think a recon plane flying over a 1000 miles and back again could get seriously lost pretty easily.

Mike



When they expected returning aircraft to be in the neighborhood, carriers could activate a radio homing beacon.

(in reply to Panther Bait)
Post #: 25
RE: F4F - 7 recon - 5/28/2010 5:15:58 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

Of course there would be the little problem of finding your own carrier after your 50 hex roundtrip mission. Even assuming that carrier can keep to its appointed schedule and arrive at the designated pickup point on time, I would think a recon plane flying over a 1000 miles and back again could get seriously lost pretty easily.

Mike



When they expected returning aircraft to be in the neighborhood, carriers could activate a radio homing beacon.


Well...ZB (Zed Baker) homing device didn't help always. What I did read that it took considerable skill to successfully home to signal (even without malfunctions).


_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 26
RE: F4F - 7 recon - 5/28/2010 7:42:00 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Not suggesting it was perfect or that any aspect of the undertaking required less than high skill - just that the pilots were not 100% stuck with finding carrier visually.

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 27
RE: F4F - 7 recon - 5/28/2010 7:47:51 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		We added about 10 4 plane sections for Recon purposes in the Reluctant Admiral Mod. They should be a nice bonus for the American player.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 28
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> F4F - 7 recon Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.723