F4F-7

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

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

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

F4F-7 - 10/10/2016 2:31:15 AM

AW1Steve

Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

A question for airplanes experts. It was my understanding that the F-4F-7 was a Wildcat stripped of all guns and with a non-folding wet wing with pretty incredible RECON capabilities. Barrett Tillman and other authors said that not only was it CV capable , but that most CV's at the time of Guadalcanal carried at least one. I've got a squadron , which I've been using extensively from land bases , but can't get it to fly out to a CV. Am I doing something wrong or is it not CV capable in the game for some reason? Many thanks in advance for any and all help.

Post #: 1

RE: F4F-7 - 10/10/2016 3:13:51 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

Is the plane carrier capable in the database?

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 2

RE: F4F-7 - 10/10/2016 3:15:48 AM

btd64

Posts: 9973
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in Lancaster, OHIO
Status: offline

Yes. I've never had a problem putting them on a CV. Post a image....GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 3

RE: F4F-7 - 10/10/2016 3:45:55 AM

IdahoNYer

Posts: 2616
Joined: 9/6/2009
From: NYer living in Boise, ID
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Is the plane carrier capable in the database?

Bill

Not in DBB-C

Attachment (1)

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 4

RE: F4F-7 - 10/10/2016 3:50:48 AM

crsutton

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

F4F 7 is not carrier capable in the game. It probably should be but it is not in either stock or in DaBabes mods. They were used in the Solomon campaign and some sources state that each carrier was assigned one aircraft. just open up my game to make sure and it can only be transferred to a docked ship.

< Message edited by crsutton -- 10/10/2016 3:52:50 AM >

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to btd64)

Post #: 5

RE: F4F-7 - 10/10/2016 5:40:16 AM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

It was overweight and not a successful carrier aircraft.

Quite a conscious decision by the devs to not make it "carrier capable".

Alfred

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 6

RE: F4F-7 - 10/10/2016 9:02:14 AM

Buckrock

Posts: 578
Joined: 3/16/2012
From: Not all there
Status: offline

The Saratoga, Enterprise and Hornet each carried a single F4F-7 in addition to their normal CAG complement as a trial during the period
Jul-Sep '42. The F4F-7 was considered a recon-utility aircraft to be used by the VF squadrons if a relevant mission was required. No
use was found for this unarmed recon "fighter" during the trial period and since it was disliked by both the pilots and the deck crews,
the F4F-7s were off-loaded in September '42 and handed over to the Marines for land based use in the Guadalcanal campaign.

So while it was historically carrier capable, it appears not to be carrier wanted by the USN.

_____________________________

This was the only sig line I could think of.

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 7

RE: F4F-7 - 10/10/2016 1:20:40 PM

Leandros

Posts: 1740
Joined: 3/5/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

It was overweight and not a successful carrier aircraft.

Quite a conscious decision by the devs to not make it "carrier capable".

Alfred

Looking at the information offered here - how could it be "overweight" with
armaments and armour removed and no wing-folding mechanism? Of course, the
reason for all this was to get more space, and weight, for fuel. I should think
the weight of cameras would add up to much less than armament and armour. Fuelled
up for a max endurance recce flight it would certainly be heavy. That was,
after all, the purpose of the modifications - to make it heavy - with fuel.
But, half-way through the mission, lightened, it would handle much better.

And I'm sure it would be less than popular with crews, not having neither armaments
nor armour. Not to talk about navigating alone over distances such as it was capable
of. It would take a special sort of pilot to like that. The ship's crew would also
dislike the non-folding wings, taking up more space on the hangar deck. That said,
I think it was just as bad decision by the devs, not to make it carrier capable,
as it was by the carrier commanders not to understand the value of such a plane.
They might have been of better practical use if they had more of it. That each
carrier had a designated "scout" squadron may have resulted in the minimal use of
this type. Just my opinion.

Fred

< Message edited by Leandros -- 10/10/2016 1:22:22 PM >

_____________________________

River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book on Operation Sea Lion - www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - a book series on how The Philippines were saved - in 1942! https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D34QCWQ/?ie=UTF8&redirect=true&ref=series_rw_dp_labf

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 8

RE: F4F-7 - 10/10/2016 3:02:12 PM

crsutton

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

And it was not very fast nor could it fly very high. Not good attributes for an unarmed single engine plane.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Leandros)

Post #: 9

RE: F4F-7 - 10/10/2016 3:29:24 PM

Panther Bait

Posts: 654
Joined: 8/30/2006
Status: offline

Speaking of navigating, if the whole point of giving it the max fuel load was to increase range (and time aloft as well), wouldn't that drastically complicate finding the carrier again? Or constrain the carrier to be in a certain general area for the entire recon mission?

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 crsutton)

Post #: 10

RE: F4F-7 - 10/10/2016 6:48:02 PM

Leandros

Posts: 1740
Joined: 3/5/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

Speaking of navigating, if the whole point of giving it the max fuel load was to increase range (and time aloft as
well), wouldn't that drastically complicate finding the carrier again? Or constrain the carrier to be in a
certain general area for the entire recon mission?

Mike

RDF and radar. But, that was one of my points. As for speed and altitude, many factors there. With what
weight and altitude is the specified speed? At what stage of the mission is the max altitude specified?

What did the Japs do as to long-range carrier fleet recce?

Fred

< Message edited by Leandros -- 10/10/2016 6:50:31 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Panther Bait)

Post #: 11

RE: F4F-7 - 10/10/2016 6:49:21 PM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Is the plane carrier capable in the database?

Bill

Not in DBB-C

As indicated..these are two distinctly different planes. The range of the F4F-7 is nearly 4000 miles, as opposed to that F4F-3P model.

http://www.pwencycl.kgbudge.com/F/4/F4F_Wildcat.htm

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by m10bob -- 10/10/2016 6:53:30 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to IdahoNYer)

Post #: 12

RE: F4F-7 - 10/11/2016 5:00:22 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

Many thanks. I expected the Dev's had their reasons.

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 13

RE: F4F-7 - 10/11/2016 5:21:26 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Many thanks. I expected the Dev's had their reasons.

One of the reasons is probably the five squadron limit on CVs. If you have one of the F-7s on board there goes an entire squadron slot (not in plane numbers - that is a different limit).

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 14

RE: F4F-7 - 10/11/2016 5:51:40 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Many thanks. I expected the Dev's had their reasons.

One of the reasons is probably the five squadron limit on CVs. If you have one of the F-7s on board there goes an entire squadron slot (not in plane numbers - that is a different limit).

Can't recall if its stock or one of the many mods I have played, but in at least one scenario I can recall a handful of Essex carriers with a 4 plane recon squadron added as the fifth squadron.

In my current scenario 40 game I decided to split the F4F3P into 4 plane units and add them to three of my carriers as an experiment.

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 15

RE: F4F-7 - 10/11/2016 8:06:34 PM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

It was overweight and not a successful carrier aircraft.

Quite a conscious decision by the devs to not make it "carrier capable".

Alfred

Looking at the information offered here - how could it be "overweight" with
armaments and armour removed and no wing-folding mechanism? Of course, the
reason for all this was to get more space, and weight, for fuel. I should think
the weight of cameras would add up to much less than armament and armour. Fuelled
up for a max endurance recce flight it would certainly be heavy. That was,
after all, the purpose of the modifications - to make it heavy - with fuel.
But, half-way through the mission, lightened, it would handle much better.

And I'm sure it would be less than popular with crews, not having neither armaments
nor armour. Not to talk about navigating alone over distances such as it was capable
of. It would take a special sort of pilot to like that. The ship's crew would also
dislike the non-folding wings, taking up more space on the hangar deck. That said,
I think it was just as bad decision by the devs, not to make it carrier capable,
as it was by the carrier commanders not to understand the value of such a plane.
They might have been of better practical use if they had more of it. That each
carrier had a designated "scout" squadron may have resulted in the minimal use of
this type. Just my opinion.

Fred

How could it? Extra fuel storage for one. A young whippersnapper like you should know that the kind of cameras we're referring to were a lot heavier than a 50 cal or even a number of them. Here's an interesting site:

http://www.airrecce.co.uk/cameras/raf_ww2_cameras.html

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Leandros)

Post #: 16

RE: F4F-7 - 10/11/2016 8:07:16 PM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

Here's another such contraption.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 17

RE: F4F-7 - 10/11/2016 9:05:30 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

Speaking of navigating, if the whole point of giving it the max fuel load was to increase range (and time aloft as well), wouldn't that drastically complicate finding the carrier again? Or constrain the carrier to be in a certain general area for the entire recon mission?

Mike

I'd imagine that they'd link using a TACAN. It was in service at that time.

(in reply to Panther Bait)

Post #: 18

RE: F4F-7 - 10/11/2016 9:07:26 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

And it was not very fast nor could it fly very high. Not good attributes for an unarmed single engine plane.

Yet a Slower flying, lower flying PBY, B-24 , O-47, or assorted bomber manage just fine.

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 19

RE: F4F-7 - 10/11/2016 9:08:05 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

Speaking of navigating, if the whole point of giving it the max fuel load was to increase range (and time aloft as
well), wouldn't that drastically complicate finding the carrier again? Or constrain the carrier to be in a
certain general area for the entire recon mission?

Mike

They have several.

RDF and radar. But, that was one of my points. As for speed and altitude, many factors there. With what
weight and altitude is the specified speed? At what stage of the mission is the max altitude specified?

What did the Japs do as to long-range carrier fleet recce?

Fred

H'm my post apparently didn't take. The Japanese had several specialized long range RECON air craft designed or modified for CV usage.

< Message edited by AW1Steve -- 10/11/2016 9:55:36 PM >

(in reply to Leandros)

Post #: 20

RE: F4F-7 - 10/11/2016 9:11:02 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Many thanks. I expected the Dev's had their reasons.

One of the reasons is probably the five squadron limit on CVs. If you have one of the F-7s on board there goes an entire squadron slot (not in plane numbers - that is a different limit).

Maybe. For that kind of capability I'd seriously consider giving up a squadron on ONE of my CV's. You can check out the place you intend to hit without giving up the location of your TF before you are in range. ALL Japanese planes have a significant range advantage over pretty much all allied aircraft. I guess I was just hoping to be able to even the odds just once.

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 21

RE: F4F-7 - 10/11/2016 9:41:40 PM

Panther Bait

Posts: 654
Joined: 8/30/2006
Status: offline

Thanks AW1Steve and Leandros. I was thinking back to the troubles at Midway getting planes back to the carriers and that only after much shorter flights. Sounds like the technology advanced quite a bit over the timeframe of the war. Or at the very least people got better at using it.

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 AW1Steve)

Post #: 22

RE: F4F-7 - 10/11/2016 9:54:04 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

Thanks AW1Steve and Leandros. I was thinking back to the troubles at Midway getting planes back to the carriers and that only after much shorter flights. Sounds like the technology advanced quite a bit over the timeframe of the war. Or at the very least people got better at using it.

Mike

Here's a very rough and simplified explanation of a modern TACAN system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_air_navigation_system

The early war versions were often "powered down" so that once you got into "the neighborhood" you could "interrogate" the CV and then it might respond if it felt the conditions safe. But if you were interrogating , the CV knew pretty much were you were. It could send a narrow directional beacon with a reduced power output. This is about the same time that FM radio that operated on a short range "line of sight" system was being developed and would become TBS (Talk between ships) that allowed an inter task group communications with little risk of interception.

The biggest problem with the USN planes finding their own ships was largely due to a lack of experience. I would assume that for a special mission that a F4F-7 would fly , you'd put in a very , very experienced aviator.

Modern CV's have massive TACAN's and capabilities , but also can use a aircraft like a E-2D Hawkeye to control aircraft from several hundred miles away from the CV. Later in the war DD's or other ships could be used to direct aircraft (especially fighters) and minimize danger to "mother" (brevity code for the CV).

(in reply to Panther Bait)

Post #: 23

RE: F4F-7 - 10/12/2016 4:18:18 AM

Anthropoid

Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline

Thanks Steve that is an interesting link!

As the wiki on Tacan points out, it is a system with inherent drawbacks because an intercepted signal (even if it was encrypted) could be used to draw a bearing on the source of the signal. But I guess with the onship system powered down, and using a narrow directional beam with reduced power the risk of interception (particularly in a massive theatre like the Pacific) would generally be pretty minimal.

Obviously signals intelligence and cryptography were enormously important in WWII, but I'm curious: were intercepted radio signals used for direction finding ever used decisively in WWII?

Another part of the wiki has me curious about the size of the gear for these systems, both on ship and on plane:

quote:

Past TACANs have relied on high output power (up to 10,000 watts) to ensure good signal in space to overcome nulls present in antenna design and to provide their required 200 mile range. With the advancement of technology, antenna design has improved with higher gain antennas, much shallower nulls, and lighter construction. Now it's feasible to have a 200 nmi range with a 400 watt TACAN DME transmitter, making the TACAN package much smaller, more portable and more reliable (decrease in power also reduces heat, which lengthens the life of electronics).
TACAN is getting smaller: full TACAN coverage can now be provided in a system that can be carried on a single trailer weighing less than 4000 lbs, and set up by two people in less than an hour. TACAN Transceivers can now be as small as lunch boxes (with full coverage and range) and the antennas can be reduced from 800 pounds to less than 100 pounds.

So, there has to be a special radio transceiver on board the aircraft itself? Or could the aircraft's 'general purpose' radio be adjusted to the specific frequency? I guess all of these aircraft must have had some big ass alternators in them to produce enough power from the engine rotation to keep electronics like this running eh?

_____________________________

The x-ray is her siren song. My ship cannot resist her long. Nearer to my deadly goal. Until the black hole. Gains control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIlkyZ328&feature=autoplay&list=AL94UKMTqg-9CocLGbd6tpbuQRxyF4FGNr&playnext=3

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 24

RE: F4F-7 - 10/12/2016 2:14:04 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

Yes. Fletcher was getting real time info on IJN positions at Coral Sea ... he didn't use them to his full advantage aqs it was new and not entirely trusted, but he did use the info somewhat.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Anthropoid)

Post #: 25

RE: F4F-7 - 10/12/2016 3:27:31 PM

Yaab

Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Here's another such contraption.

Kraftwerk reunion CD cover?

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 26

RE: F4F-7 - 10/12/2016 3:53:48 PM

Ostwindflak

Posts: 668
Joined: 1/23/2014
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

The Japanese primarily used float planes and the Kawanishi flying boats for their naval recon from most accounts I have read.

(in reply to Yaab)

Post #: 27

RE: F4F-7 - 10/12/2016 3:57:03 PM

Buckrock

Posts: 578
Joined: 3/16/2012
From: Not all there
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

So, there has to be a special radio transceiver on board the aircraft itself? Or could the aircraft's 'general purpose' radio be adjusted to the specific frequency? I guess all of these aircraft must have had some big ass alternators in them to produce enough power from the engine rotation to keep electronics like this running eh?

The "homing" receiver was relatively small, weighing only around 10lbs and was integrated into the aircraft's standard comms package. The unit's power requirement was no greater than any of the other 5 radio receivers carried as standard by a navy fighter in 1942. The "homing" receiver did require a dedicated external antenna though, normally located somewhere beneath the wing or fuselage.

_____________________________

This was the only sig line I could think of.

(in reply to Anthropoid)

Post #: 28

RE: F4F-7 - 10/12/2016 4:33:46 PM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ostwindflak

The Japanese primarily used float planes and the Kawanishi flying boats for their naval recon from most accounts I have read.

The Japanese used several types for RECON..The MYRT was used on their carriers.

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/C/6/C6N_Myrt.htm

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by m10bob -- 10/12/2016 4:36:09 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Ostwindflak)

Post #: 29

RE: F4F-7 - 10/12/2016 4:46:51 PM

Ostwindflak

Posts: 668
Joined: 1/23/2014
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

Indeed they did, but all I was saying is that from what I have read their recon plane of choice while at sea seemed to be their Aichi floatplanes. Those seemed to be what the U.S. carrier CAPs seemed to shoot down the most around the U.S. battle groups. I have heard of other types of Japanese recon planes like the picture you provided, but how often were they employed?

< Message edited by Ostwindflak -- 10/12/2016 4:47:23 PM >

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 30