|
|
In 1931 a very young American aviation manufacturing company - Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation - received its first contract from the US Navy for a carrier-based fighter of biplane configuration. Under the designation FF (fighter) or SF (scout), they marked the beginning of an association which seems certain of remaining unbroken for at least a half-century. In that period some remarkable naval aircraft have originated from Grumman, earning the trust and respect of those who have flown them in peace and war.
The company's first carrier-based fighter of monoplane configuration was designed to meet a US Navy requirement which originated in 1935, but it was not until July 1936 that the Navy ordered this aircraft, under the designation XF4F-2. In its developed service form it was to prove an outstanding naval fighter of World War II, but when first evaluated against a competing design from the Brewster Aeronautical Corporation, it failed to be selected for production, despite being some 16km/h faster than the Brewster design.
To overcome the shortcomings of the XF4F-2, a new prototype was built with a more powerful two-stage supercharged engine, and airframe revisions which increased wing span and brought changes to wingtips and tail surfaces. In this form the XF4F-3 flew for the first time on 12 February 1939.
The Wildcat was first ordered by the US Navy in 1939 and the F4F-3, F4F-4 and F4F-7 (a special long-range photographic-reconnaissance version of the F4F-4) were all built by the Grumman company. Concurrently the British Martlet (later renamed Wildcat) Mk I to IV were Grumman-built.
In 1942 the manufacture of the Wildcat was transferred to the Eastern Aircraft Division of the General Motors Corporation. The first FM-1 Wildcat, assembled from parts supplied by Grumman, flew on 1 September 1942. By 11 April 1944 the Eastern Aircraft Division had produced its 2,500th Wildcat. The FM-1, fitted with a Pratt & Whitney R-1830-86 engine, was virtually the same as the F4F-4 (Wildcat IV). The FM-2 (Wildcat VI), which went into production in 1943, was fitted with a Wright R-1820-56 engine of greater power but lower weight than the previous unit, had a redesigned tail unit with a taller fin and rudder and had the oil coolers removed from the under surface of the centre-section to the cowling, which was revised in shape. The removal of the oil coolers permitted the installation of universal racks under the inner wings for bombs or auxiliary fuel tanks.
Altogether nearly 8,000 Wildcats were built, three-quarters by the Eastern Division. These were used operationally by the US Navy on a wide scale in the Pacific (FM-2 in particular serving as light escort carrier fighters), participating in the battles of the Coral Sea and Midway, and were used extensively in the attack on Guadalcanal. Although somewhat inferior to the Japanese Zero, the rugged Wildcat proved invaluable in the early stages of the war in the Pacific, until gradually replaced by more effective fighters from 1943, although the type remained in first-line service until the end of the war. British Martlets initially replaced Sea Gladiators and, like their US Navy counterparts, remained operational until the end of the war.
| MODEL | F4F-4 |
| CREW | 1 |
| ENGINE | 1 x Pratt & Whitney R-1830-36 Twin Wasp, 895kW |
| WEIGHTS |
| Take-off weight | 3607 kg | 7952 lb |
| Empty weight | 2612 kg | 5759 lb |
| DIMENSIONS |
| Wingspan | 11.58 m | 37 ft 12 in |
| Length | 8.76 m | 28 ft 9 in |
| Height | 2.81 m | 9 ft 3 in |
| Wing area | 24.15 m2 | 259.95 sq ft |
| PERFORMANCE |
| Max. speed | 512 km/h | 318 mph |
| Cruise speed | 249 km/h | 155 mph |
| Ceiling | 12010 m | 39400 ft |
| Range | 1239 km | 770 miles |
| ARMAMENT | 6 x 12.7mm machine-guns, 2 x 45kg bombs |
 | A three-view drawing of F4F-4 Wildcat (1280 x 898) |
| Electric Joe, electricjoe(@)aol.com, 24.12.2009 The F4F has been maligned largely due to fighter pilots' dissatisfaction at not having something better. No pilot likes to see another plane out-perform his in any respect. Many an F4F pilot witnessed an A6M Zero performing better aerobatically and did not like it.
In fact, aerobatic performance isn't everything. Wildcats carried better radios, permitting their pilots to employ better tactics. They were more rugged, dove faster, and packed more fire-power of a fighter-killing nature. By comparison, the A6M climbed faster and performed better aerobatics, and had slightly better level speed, but the pilots lacked the ability to coordinate by radio (at least in early models and while Japanese pilots chose to begrudge the weight to attain more aerobatic performance) and suffered from poor armament--machine-guns too light and too few to bring down a fighter effectively, and slow-firing, low-velocity cannon with limited ammunition more suitable to attacking bombers.
The fact that so many F4F pilots lived to gripe about the plane's inadequacies is a testament to its strengths. And its combat record against the vaunted Zero was hardly one of a "dog" of a plane dominated by a "stallion." It was essentially a one-for-one exchange between very different aircraft built to meet different requirements. | | Leo Rudnicki, leo_rudnicki(@)hotmail.com, 02.06.2009 Apparently, Christian, you have not read any of Eric "Winkle" Brown's books. World record for most different aircraft types flown (457) and most carrier deck landings as well as first twin ( mosquito) and first Jet (Vampire) on a deck. When Britain didn't have a carrier fighter, the Wildcat (Martlet) was there. In production. The fact that the zero outperformed the Wildcat is explained by the fact that Japan required it as a pre-requisite of going to war. The fact that the Wildcat was a superb naval fighter is shown by the fact that it served as FM-2, right to the end as an Escort Carrier fighter. It's ONLY peer was the Zeke, an aircraft which didn't protect it's pilot, and burned readily. I'm sure Grumman and the USN would not, and did not make that sacrifice. | | Christian, secrethamster(AT)fuzzmail.co.uk, 03.12.2008 I've no experience of flying, I'm too young to even have ever seen one of these fly. But I love military aircraft, and have read up on them all my life.
So I ask this. All the records and accounts I have read about this plane previously have listed the F4 as a real dog of a plane. Sure it was comfortable to probably fly, and it worked well of a carrier, but as a combat aircraft it was poor compared to it's peers of the time it was no match. Or am I remembering a completely different aircraft.
I seem to remember the F6 being a huge upgrade and one of the elements that helped swing the carrier/naval air combat back towards the Allies? | | Paul R. Flow, pflow(@)ij.net, 11.05.2008 In WWII, I was a Plane Captain on TBM Avengers on an Escort Carrier in the Pacific.We also had FM-2 Wildcats.The landing gear on the Wildcats was cranked up and down with a bicycle-type chain.If the pilot did not turn the crank handle the last quarter-turn to drive home the locking pins, when he landed, all the weight of the plane was on the chain, which broke and the gear folded.Several times I had to jump to avoid a Wildcat sliding up the deck on its belly. | | Francis W Peak, 10881fwp(@)gmmail.com, 25.04.2008 My first operational aircraft was the "Wildcat" in 1944 at Green Cove Springs, Florida. I graduated from Pensacola in June '44. My most vivid remembrance of the "Wildcat" was the Landing gear which had to be retracted by a hand crank on the right side of the cockpit, hold on tight because many wrists were injured by letting it freefall. But what a fun airplane to fly,the narrow landing gear made landing tricky.Thanks for the memories FWP |
|
Do you have any comments about this aircraft ?
|
| |
