RE: 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

RE: 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 >> RE: F4F-7

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: F4F-7 - 10/30/2016 6:22:16 AM

Buckrock

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros
The only actual weight I have for the -7 is the allowable MTOW � 10.328 lbs. and the �empty� weight (Greene). What would have been nice to have is its �operational� empty weight. That is, �gross� - less fuel.

We can, of course, do it the simple way. If we presume that the MTOW was finalized at 10.328 lbs simply to get weight space for the actual fuel tankage, the Operational Empty Weight would be: 6.300 lbs. To reach that number I have retracted 685 gls. fuel (4.080 lbs.) � self-sealing material removed from the �center� tank, increasing its capacity marginally.

OK, you may be tripping yourself up here. The 10,328lbs you always see mentioned for this aircraft comes from Grumman's design specification.
Those specifications did not include things like allowable maximum take off weight (MTOW), only empty weights or mission gross weights. According
to Lundstrom, this weight was for a fully loaded F4F-7. That is a pilot, all mission equipment, oil and the full 685 gallon fuel load.

So you now have your fully loaded recon mission F4F-7 which weighs 6,300lbs without fuel.

quote:

This looks reasonable. Standard (normal fighter) gross weight for the F4F-3 was 6.864 lbs inclusive of armour, self-sealing tanks, pilot and his paraphernalias, 110 gls. of fuel (660 lbs.), weapons and some ammo (526 lbs.), flotation gear, etc.

And your F4F-3 loaded for a normal fighter mission weighs 6,864lbs (which includes a fuel weight of 110 gallons).

So you probably now have everything you need to compare your two aircraft. Either remove the F4F-3's 110 gallon fuel load (660lbs) or add the same
fuel load to the F4F-7 so that the two aircraft become comparable for the same fuel condition.

I'd say the F4F-7 was 100lbs heavier than the F4F-3 under those conditions.

Edited for clarification.

< Message edited by Buckrock -- 10/30/2016 8:37:22 PM >

_____________________________

This was the only sig line I could think of.

(in reply to Leandros)

Post #: 91

RE: F4F-7 - 11/1/2016 8:27:04 PM

Leandros

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

Take-off

To proceed with our analysis, let�s take a general look at the Wildcat�s take-off parameters, there has been posters here that imply that this aircraft could not take off from a carrier. As I have no official take-off specs other than that of the �normal� Wildcat I shall make a preliminary comparison.

I have a Navy Dept. document on the F4F-3 �land� from Oct. 14th 1942. The max. F4F-3 take-off weight referred to there is 8.361 lbs, a configuration with two drop tanks. It states the following take-off lengths for that weight:

Zero wind: 736 feet
15 kts. Headwind: 480 feet
25 kts. headwind: 330 feet

As an example, the flight deck of Enterprise was more than 700 feet long, Saratoga�s more than 800 feet. I�m not very acquainted with carrier operations but as I understand it, it was routine to turn into the wind when launching, and increase speed. Enterprise could easily make 25 knots, as could Saratoga. I should also think there was rarely less than a 5-10 kts. wind on the open sea.

It would have been nice with some official parameters/graphs on the F4F-7, other than the MTOW. In the mean-time I shall get back with some practical examples, using the 6.300 lbs. OEW I suggested in my previous posting.

Fred

_____________________________

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 Buckrock)

Post #: 92

RE: F4F-7 - 11/2/2016 5:31:19 PM

Buckrock

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros

Take-off

To proceed with our analysis, let�s take a general look at the Wildcat�s take-off parameters, there has been posters here that imply that this aircraft could not take off from a carrier.

AFAIK, no one has implied that. What was stated is that a fully loaded F4F-7 could not take off from a carrier without assistance from a
head-wind. This was stated in Lundstrom's book as "special wind conditions", implying more than the standard used for carrier operations.

It's also worth adding that this did not neccessarily mean a fully loaded take off was otherwise impossible within the deck length of a
US Fleet Carrier but rather that it was not possible to do while also keeping the required "margin of safety" set for US deck operations.
If you want to better understand what this meant, have a look around for sources detailing any of the Fleet's fights with the BuAer over
an aircraft's specified "ideal" take off distance for a given weight vs what was found in the field. IIRC, the SB2C-1C was a classic case
for this.

_____________________________

This was the only sig line I could think of.

(in reply to Leandros)

Post #: 93

RE: F4F-7 - 11/3/2016 2:27:56 PM

m10bob

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros

Take-off

To proceed with our analysis, let�s take a general look at the Wildcat�s take-off parameters, there has been posters here that imply that this aircraft could not take off from a carrier.

AFAIK, no one has implied that. What was stated is that a fully loaded F4F-7 could not take off from a carrier without assistance from a
head-wind. This was stated in Lundstrom's book as "special wind conditions", implying more than the standard used for carrier operations.

It's also worth adding that this did not neccessarily mean a fully loaded take off was otherwise impossible within the deck length of a
US Fleet Carrier but rather that it was not possible to do while also keeping the required "margin of safety" set for US deck operations.
If you want to better understand what this meant, have a look around for sources detailing any of the Fleet's fights with the BuAer over
an aircraft's specified "ideal" take off distance for a given weight vs what was found in the field. IIRC, the SB2C-1C was a classic case
for this.

When were deck catapults installed?

_____________________________

(in reply to Buckrock)

Post #: 94

RE: F4F-7 - 11/3/2016 3:11:04 PM

Buckrock

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

As far as I know, all the USN CV's that served in the Pacific in '42 had flight deck catapults but these would not capable of launching an aircraft with the weight of a fully loaded F4F-7, if that was what you were asking. More powerful catapults that equipped US carriers later in the war could have but by then far more capable carrier photo-recon aircraft with much shorter take-off runs were available for use anyway.

_____________________________

This was the only sig line I could think of.

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 95

RE: F4F-7 - 11/3/2016 3:16:58 PM

MakeeLearn

Posts: 4278
Joined: 9/11/2016
Status: offline

F4F-7 Loss record.

I dont know for certain the key.

The options are u , s , m , d ,empty

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by MakeeLearn -- 11/3/2016 3:21:02 PM >

(in reply to Buckrock)

Post #: 96

RE: F4F-7 - 11/3/2016 3:53:42 PM

Buckrock

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

F4F-7 Loss record.

I dont know for certain the key.

The options are u , s , m , d ,empty

S = Pilot saved, U = Unknown (no details), M = Pilot Missing, D = Pilot Deceased.

Interestingly, the VF-6 loss from the Enterprise (Lt. Vorse) on 8/24/42 may be an error as records show that the pilot ditched in an F4F-4 on that day while the Enterprise's only F4F-7 remained below deck. A few days later, the F4F-7 was flown off and handed over to the Marines. It was then destroyed in early September '42 when a VMO-251 pilot lost control of it and crashed during an attempt to fly it from Espiritu Santo to Guadalcanal.

_____________________________

This was the only sig line I could think of.

(in reply to MakeeLearn)

Post #: 97

RE: F4F-7 - 11/3/2016 5:55:30 PM

Leandros

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

USS Enterprise - Catapults - Flight Deck:

One: H MK II (7000 lbs to 70 mph in 55-ft)
Two: H 2-1 (11,000 lbs to 70 mph in 73-ft)

Conforms with the MTOW of the SBD, too - 10.700 lbs.

Fred

http://cv6.org/ship/big_e.htm

< Message edited by Leandros -- 11/3/2016 5:58:34 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Buckrock)

Post #: 98

RE: F4F-7 - 11/3/2016 6:16:48 PM

Buckrock

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

And if you look at the hyperlink you provided, the H 2-1 catapults are listed as part of the Post-1943 Refit (Bremerton) with the Enterprise only having the H MK II (7000lb) prior to that.

_____________________________

This was the only sig line I could think of.

(in reply to Leandros)

Post #: 99

RE: F4F-7 - 11/3/2016 6:20:10 PM

Leandros

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

And if you look at the hyperlink you provided, the H 2-1 catapults are listed as part of the Post-1943 Refit (Bremerton) with the Enterprise only having the H MK II (7000lb) prior to that.

Indeed.

Fred

_____________________________

(in reply to Buckrock)

Post #: 100

RE: F4F-7 - 11/5/2016 3:56:53 PM

Buckrock

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros
I have a Navy Dept. document on the F4F-3 �land� from Oct. 14th 1942. The max. F4F-3 take-off weight referred to there is 8.361 lbs, a configuration with two drop tanks. It states the following take-off lengths for that weight:

Zero wind: 736 feet
15 kts. Headwind: 480 feet
25 kts. headwind: 330 feet

Just one more area to note before you try using similar aircraft characteristics to determine how the F4F-7 could get airborne, any % increase
in weight will normally create an even greater % increase in take off distance and this can become even more marked as the weight approaches
an aircraft's maximum gross TOW. And if drop tanks are present in similar aircraft (such as your F4F-3 example) then make sure the aerodynamic
drag penalty from these aren't carried over to your clean F4F-7's T/O run calculation.

Good Luck.

_____________________________

This was the only sig line I could think of.

(in reply to Leandros)

Post #: 101

RE: F4F-7 - 11/5/2016 4:12:41 PM

crsutton

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

The thing is, I doubt that the aircraft was used too often for a 3,000 mile recon flight. Probably most flights were of much shorter duration. Would they just not reduce the fuel load accordingly for such a recon trip making the plane much easier to get up off a carrier? I am just speculating but I seriously doubt that many flights (if any) were going off carriers with a full load. If operating near a land base it seems that it would make more sense to transfer the plane to that base (and then gas it up) if a very long range recon were needed.

The information needed is how these planes were actually used. We know what they were designed for but did very long range recon with these planes ever happen in practice?

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Buckrock)

Post #: 102

RE: F4F-7 - 11/5/2016 5:16:43 PM

Buckrock

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

The thing is, I doubt that the aircraft was used too often for a 3,000 mile recon flight. Probably most flights were of much shorter duration. Would they just not reduce the fuel load accordingly for such a recon trip making the plane much easier to get up off a carrier? I am just speculating but I seriously doubt that many flights (if any) were going off carriers with a full load. If operating near a land base it seems that it would make more sense to transfer the plane to that base (and then gas it up) if a very long range recon were needed.

You are correct but Leandros in this case was (or appeared to be) going to calculate the take off run of a fully loaded F4F-7 so as to confirm it was
possible for that aircraft with the same weight to operate from a USN fleet carrier.

quote:

The information needed is how these planes were actually used. We know what they were designed for but did very long range recon with these planes ever happen in practice?

I've never read of any F4F-7 being used for very long range operational missions and those units that used them appeared to carry little or no fuel
in the unprotected wing tanks. The F4F-7 were never used operationally from USN CVs. They were instead given to land-based USN and USMC aviation
units who then used them primarily for conventional photo-mapping missions alongside F4F-3Ps and F4F-4Ps, as well as for training and as a liason
aircraft. The F4F-7's career highlight was probably from Sep to Nov '42 when, as the only dedicated photo-recon aircraft type based at CACTUS, it
performed valuable photographic missions around Guadalcanal that allowed the Marine Division to produce its first detailed military maps covering
the local battle area.

< Message edited by Buckrock -- 11/5/2016 7:59:10 PM >

_____________________________

This was the only sig line I could think of.

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 103