Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ostwindflak

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?

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

quote:


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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

The Myrt I provided was a later war type and the notes I have seen indicate it WAS used on their carriers, but the majority of the ships were sunk before deployment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Macclan5


In support of this... perhaps more specific to the F6 Hellcat and F4F7... I note some CVE are capable of flying at least the F6.

I was "under the impression" that a number of / all the CVE for example could not fly the heavier planes.

In fact at Leyete Gulf local CAP was the F4 Wildcat (still).

I cannot recall the specific references that gave me this impression; perhaps someone with more knowledge can correct me?

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

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

The cameras were not so heavy. Big and cumbersome, but not nearly as heavy at 21lbs as one 50cal M2 at 61lbs.

Fuel.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

In support of this... perhaps more specific to the F6 Hellcat and F4F7... I note some CVE are capable of flying at least the F6.

I was "under the impression" that a number of / all the CVE for example could not fly the heavier planes.

In fact at Leyete Gulf local CAP was the F4 Wildcat (still).

I cannot recall the specific references that gave me this impression; perhaps someone with more knowledge can correct me?

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I think the Sherman was an outstanding medium tank. Its reliability and speed were exemplary. The US just didn't have a heavy tank til almost the end of the war. I know the Hellcat was a great advance but thank g we had Wildcats at Midway.

I have a question. I just don't happen to know about this. I'm not asking about a specific model or nationality. Fighters with mixed armament, say two different calibers of MG or a mix of MG and cannon, did the pilot have the ability to choose which group of guns fired or even, beyond that, could he choose which individual gun would fire when he pulled the trigger?

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I think the Sherman was an outstanding medium tank. Its reliability and speed were exemplary. The US just didn't have a heavy tank til almost the end of the war. I know the Hellcat was a great advance but thank g we had Wildcats at Midway.

quote:


I have a question. I just don't happen to know about this. I'm not asking about a specific model or nationality. Fighters with mixed armament, say two different calibers of MG or a mix of MG and cannon, did the pilot have the ability to choose which group of guns fired or even, beyond that, could he choose which individual gun would fire when he pulled the trigger?

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

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

The cameras were not so heavy. Big and cumbersome, but not nearly as heavy at 21lbs as one 50cal M2 at 61lbs.

Fuel.

I think the film was the greatest weight factor. The strips were quite wide and presumably many yards long. Recon aircraft usually had at least two cameras to get the stereoscopic effect when the pictures were analyzed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

The cameras were not so heavy. Big and cumbersome, but not nearly as heavy at 21lbs as one 50cal M2 at 61lbs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bomccarthy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Macclan5


In support of this... perhaps more specific to the F6 Hellcat and F4F7... I note some CVE are capable of flying at least the F6.

I was "under the impression" that a number of / all the CVE for example could not fly the heavier planes.

In fact at Leyete Gulf local CAP was the F4 Wildcat (still).

I cannot recall the specific references that gave me this impression; perhaps someone with more knowledge can correct me?

F6Fs did operate from CVEs throughout the war, with some F6F squadrons flying from CVEs during the Tarawa operation. From USN records, it appears that the Sangamon class CVEs operated F6F squadrons for most of the war (you can browse photocopies of the weekly records here: https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/naval-aviation-history/location-of-us-naval-aircraft-world-war-ii.html). USN F6Fs operating from CVEs provided air cover for ANVIL in southern France, shooting down a few Luftwaffe planes in the weeks after the invasion.

The Casablanca class CVEs had some problems operating Hellcats (relatively short flight deck), so they stuck to FM Wildcats for most of the war, but the Commencement Bay class CVEs operated Marine F4U squadrons in 1945.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson
The FM Wildcat was kept in production for the CVEs because of a few factors. CVEs either operated a long ways from enemy air and their fighters only had to deal with long range patrol aircraft or they were used for invasion support where the fast carriers were around and tasked with keeping enemy air at bay so the CVEs could do their job of flying ground support. The fighters were there in case something slipped through.

Additionally Grumman was maxxed out building F6F for the fast carriers. Supply was just meeting demand and there wasn't a lot of extra production to fill out other squadrons that were unlikely to encounter a lot of enemy air. The Wildcat was also significantly smaller than the F6F, so it worked better in the tight spaces on a CVE. The FM-2 had a more powerful engine that allowed Wildcats to get off a loaded deck (short run) without having to be hooked up to the catapult as well as quickly intercept enemy aircraft. The FM-1 could make a rolling launch in most situations too. Avengers usually had to be launched by catapult, even on search missions because they were too heavy to make a deck run.

The US went with a "good enough" doctrine throughout the war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros

Just for asking, what range do you get with this one in the game?

Fred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros

Just for asking, what range do you get with this one in the game?

Fred

For my stock game, I have 21 hexes for normal, 27 for extended and 81 for max.

And I noticed in your previous post some of your facts and assumptions seem at odds with what I've read in the USN and Marine records about
the aircraft, which might be why I'm not as optimistic about the F4F-7's historic potential. But rather than try to convince you otherwise, perhaps
the following might help put the aircraft's potential into perspective.....

From chapter I of John B. Lundstroms "The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign"......

"If the F4F-4 was a winner, the same could not be said for its photo-reconnaissance version, the F4F-7, being supplied in limited numbers
to carrier utility units for use by the VF squadrons. Basically, the F4F-7 was a stripped-down version of the fixed wing F4F-3 transformed
into a camera-equipped flying fuel tank. Fully loaded with 685 gallons of fuel, the beast topped 10,300 pounds and required special wind
conditions just to get aloft.

Fuel supplanted all the armament and protection, with only a fuel dump system for defense. Even so, top speed reached only 270 knots (310
MPH), slower than its prospective opponents. Estimated range was 3,700 miles; indeed the F4F-7 flew nonstop from coast to coast in 11 hours.
As one expert on the Wildcat quipped, “At one time an endurance of 24 hours was claimed for the airplane, which must have brought great joy
to everyone except the prospective pilot.”

At San Diego Lt. Louis H. Bauer’s VF-2 detachment rendered a scathing verdict of the F4F-7. Its prospective pilots, certain members of the
VF squadrons who had taken aerial photography courses at Quantico, felt little reason to love the photo Wildcat."

One final point to add to Lundstrom's view, I've noticed the Marine air units like VMO-251 and VMD-154 that flew the F4F-7 seemed somewhat
more accepting of the aircraft but that may be that they normally flew it with only the fuselage tank containing fuel. They also tended to use
it only for mapping missions in quieter areas or at least ones that had Allied control of the skies, leaving the serious work for armed recon
aircraft like the PB4Y-1P.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros

Just for asking, what range do you get with this one in the game?

Fred

For my stock game, I have 21 hexes for normal, 27 for extended and 81 for max.

And I noticed in your previous post some of your facts and assumptions seem at odds with what I've read in the USN and Marine records about
the aircraft, which might be why I'm not as optimistic about the F4F-7's historic potential. But rather than try to convince you otherwise, perhaps
the following might help put the aircraft's potential into perspective.....

From chapter I of John B. Lundstroms "The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign"......

"If the F4F-4 was a winner, the same could not be said for its photo-reconnaissance version, the F4F-7, being supplied in limited numbers
to carrier utility units for use by the VF squadrons. Basically, the F4F-7 was a stripped-down version of the fixed wing F4F-3 transformed
into a camera-equipped flying fuel tank. Fully loaded with 685 gallons of fuel, the beast topped 10,300 pounds and required special wind
conditions just to get aloft.

Fuel supplanted all the armament and protection, with only a fuel dump system for defense. Even so, top speed reached only 270 knots (310
MPH), slower than its prospective opponents. Estimated range was 3,700 miles; indeed the F4F-7 flew nonstop from coast to coast in 11 hours.
As one expert on the Wildcat quipped, “At one time an endurance of 24 hours was claimed for the airplane, which must have brought great joy
to everyone except the prospective pilot.”

At San Diego Lt. Louis H. Bauer’s VF-2 detachment rendered a scathing verdict of the F4F-7. Its prospective pilots, certain members of the
VF squadrons who had taken aerial photography courses at Quantico, felt little reason to love the photo Wildcat."

One final point to add to Lundstrom's view, I've noticed the Marine air units like VMO-251 and VMD-154 that flew the F4F-7 seemed somewhat
more accepting of the aircraft but that may be that they normally flew it with only the fuselage tank containing fuel. They also tended to use
it only for mapping missions in quieter areas or at least ones that had Allied control of the skies, leaving the serious work for armed recon
aircraft like the PB4Y-1P.

Thank you, Buck, you don't have to convince me of anything, what I am aiming at is just to get facts and
figures out in the day since the question was asked here in the first place. If the local leadership was not up
to making use of its proper potential or felt they had no need for it, they were the best to judge in that. That
said, the story smell a little of what I have seen in so many other controversies regarding warplanes, that I am
not surprised that the verdict turned out the way it did. This was a special plane configuration that had to be
used in a special way - by specialists.

If i should go on with this it wouldn't be to convince anybody that the decision was wrong, but rather to show what
it could have done. Probably did, too. As an example, with a "normal" gross weight, 8.200 lbs., it would still have
more than 3.5 times as much fuel as the "fighting" version of the F4F.

A practical question I would like to have clarified is if it at all could have taken off from a carrier with its
specified MTOW - which you state is 10.300 lbs. - my memory say 10.200 but I happily accept your correction.
Unfortunately, I have found no graphs on this. I have graphs for a "gross" weight of 8.200 lbs. with compensation
for runway length and headwinds.

As you well know, discussions and comparisons of aircraft are often difficult because the same parameters are rarely
used, or found, on the types to be compared. Typical is your own remark that max. speed for the "-7" on max weight
was only 310 mph. - that is only marginally slower than the "standard" version. At what altitude was this? What
was its max. speed with two "normal" drop-tanks? I dare say it was no more. Does that mean it wasn't usable with
drop-tanks? Just to indicate the complexity of what we are doing.

Did any Japanese long-range photo-recce planes have a higher speed in '42? Were the Japanese scouts not successful?
Was a PBY-5 better off if intercepted? Sorry, i wasn't supposed to get into that........

Fred

P.S.: And just to have said it, this is not the only plane that needed a headwind to get off the ground in a MTOW
configuration (depending on the runway length, of course). Luckily for the Navy guys they could usually cater for
this quite easily, without the help of the weather Gods, by turning the ship into the wind. They usually did,
anyway. I think it unnecessary to say that it was never meant for "armed recon".

quote:


I'm afraid that the geezer in me is required to say that if by only building 27 airframes (most likely more than they needed) this makes it a "crummy airplane" than the famous SR-71 (also a specialized RECON plane) must also be regarded as "junk". After all they only built 32. Perhaps we'd like to rethink the "not very good because they didn't buy very many" comment?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros

As you well know, discussions and comparisons of aircraft are often difficult because the same parameters are rarely
used, or found, on the types to be compared. Typical is your own remark that max. speed for the "-7" on max weight
was only 310 mph. - that is only marginally slower than the "standard" version. At what altitude was this?

quote:


What was its max. speed with two "normal" drop-tanks? I dare say it was no more. Does that mean it wasn't usable with
drop-tanks? Just to indicate the complexity of what we are doing.

quote:


Did any Japanese long-range photo-recce planes have a higher speed in '42? Were the Japanese scouts not successful?
Was a PBY-5 better off if intercepted? Sorry, i wasn't supposed to get into that........

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

The F4F-7 wasn't designed to carry drop-tanks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

quote:


I'm afraid that the geezer in me is required to say that if by only building 27 airframes (most likely more than they needed) this makes it a "crummy airplane" than the famous SR-71 (also a specialized RECON plane) must also be regarded as "junk". After all they only built 32. Perhaps we'd like to rethink the "not very good because they didn't buy very many" comment?

The plane could be considered great, yet using Darwin's Finches as examples there was no niche it was needed for.

quote:

This was a special plane configuration that had to be used in a special way - by specialists.

quote:

A similar Hellcat a year later could have been of better use. Maybe they had a such one?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

quote:

This was a special plane configuration that had to be used in a special way - by specialists.

Exactly, special operations that were not taken into account. A lack of vision or not listening to someone who had the vision but not the command. A missed opportunity .

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros

quote:

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

quote:


I'm afraid that the geezer in me is required to say that if by only building 27 airframes (most likely more than they needed) this makes it a "crummy airplane" than the famous SR-71 (also a specialized RECON plane) must also be regarded as "junk". After all they only built 32. Perhaps we'd like to rethink the "not very good because they didn't buy very many" comment?

The plane could be considered great, yet using Darwin's Finches as examples there was no niche it was needed for.

I can go along with that as the USN's posture in that period was rather defensive. The best I can think of was to keep
track of Rabaul. But they had little with which to make use of that information. A similar Hellcat a year later could
have been of better use. Maybe they had a such one?

Fred

quote:

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

F6F-5P of VP-23 crashes on USS Princeton

quote:


He, what happened? Landing too heavy, with too high speed - a tired pilot after a VERY long recce flight....? Those swirling cables are not healthy.