A Wilder Wildcat

[DougM]

The thing that has mot been addressed is why. Why take the time to redesign, why what for a different engine, why add the complexity and increased vulnerability of a water cooled system. Why add a completely different type of engine with much different maintenance requirements and thus different mechanics to a small ship?

You are also ignoring where this inline water cooled engine is coming from and what is actual proformance will be to start and what you are giving up to get this engine into Navy aircraft.

The Wildcat was good enough to start with. It would have delayed the project months if not longer to design what would have been a less successful Hellcat thus still needing a Hellcat.
And the Navy HAD options for a better faster etc. aircraft. They could have had the Corsair much sooner then they did so presumably they didnt think that top end performance was worth the cost associated with getting it. Thus they idea of an inline engine with all the complications of adding inline water cooled engines to what was an all aircooled fleet could not have been worth it as the dificulty of landing a Corsair aas not worth its improvment over the Hellcat. And the Difference between a Corsair and a Hellcat (or even mire so a Wildcat) is more significant then the difference between a Corsair and a water cooled inline carrier aircraft could have been at the time.

 

[tomo pauk]

The thing that has mot been addressed is why. Why take the time to redesign, why what for a different engine, why add the complexity and increased vulnerability of a water cooled system. Why add a completely different type of engine with much different maintenance requirements and thus different mechanics to a small ship?

Main reason why is noted a few pages back.
Other reasons can include the lower drag (a bit, since Wildcat was still with the portly fuselage and a big wing), as well as better exhaust thrust due to the better layout of exhust stacks.
Fleet carriers were big ships, not the small ships.

You are also ignoring where this inline water cooled engine is coming from and what is actual proformance will be to start and what you are giving up to get this engine into Navy aircraft.

Engines should come from Packard. Actual speed improvement might be perhaps extra 20-ish mph due to the better propulsion, and another 5-10 mph due to he lower drag, meaning that we're in ballpark with the Zero 32, and can climb better.
What is given up? Nothing of note.

The Wildcat was good enough to start with. It would have delayed the project months if not longer to design what would have been a less successful Hellcat thus still needing a Hellcat.

USN was of the opinion that Wildcat was a worse fighter than the Zero, even asking for a P-40F or a similar aircraft after the Midway.
Grumman can make no XF5F and XP-50, so there is a lot of time and resources to make the V12-powered Wildcat, thus not harming the Hellcat project a single bit.

And the Navy HAD options for a better faster etc. aircraft. They could have had the Corsair much sooner then they did so presumably they didnt think that top end performance was worth the cost associated with getting it. Thus they idea of an inline engine with all the complications of adding inline water cooled engines to what was an all aircooled fleet could not have been worth it as the dificulty of landing a Corsair aas not worth its improvment over the Hellcat. And the Difference between a Corsair and a Hellcat (or even mire so a Wildcat) is more significant then the difference between a Corsair and a water cooled inline carrier aircraft could have been at the time.

Navy saw the fault in Corsair being too late because the sunk ships (like the Lexington or Yorktown) were far pricier, to say nothing about the navy personel that perished due to the leaky air defences as provided by Wildcat. As well as the bomber crews and their aircraft that were supposed to be protected by their premier fighter, again the Wildcat; granted, there was a lot that went wrong with the strike packages sent against the Japanese in 1942 to begin with.
Comparing the landing issues of the Corsair with re-engining a Wildcat is comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Belisarius II]

The thing that has mot been addressed is why. Why take the time to redesign, why what for a different engine, why add the complexity and increased vulnerability of a water cooled system. Why add a completely different type of engine with much different maintenance requirements and thus different mechanics to a small ship?

You are also ignoring where this inline water cooled engine is coming from and what is actual proformance will be to start and what you are giving up to get this engine into Navy aircraft.

The Wildcat was good enough to start with. It would have delayed the project months if not longer to design what would have been a less successful Hellcat thus still needing a Hellcat.
And the Navy HAD options for a better faster etc. aircraft. They could have had the Corsair much sooner then they did so presumably they didnt think that top end performance was worth the cost associated with getting it. Thus they idea of an inline engine with all the complications of adding inline water cooled engines to what was an all aircooled fleet could not have been worth it as the dificulty of landing a Corsair aas not worth its improvment over the Hellcat. And the Difference between a Corsair and a Hellcat (or even mire so a Wildcat) is more significant then the difference between a Corsair and a water cooled inline carrier aircraft could have been at the time.

I respect tomo pauk for his great knowledge about WWII and probably later aircraft, but I have to agree with you that inline engines weren't a realistic option for the USN. I'm sure he's right about the technical possibility of redesigning the Wildcat with a Packard Merlin but that was a path the USN would never have gone down. They had no reason to do that because they already had the solution to their problem almost available. After Midway when the navy lost faith in the Wildcat both the F6F & F4U were almost ready for mass production. By the time a PM F4F was ready for production the F6F & F4U would also be in production.

The USN was disappointed that the F4U-1 failed its carrier qualification trials. The long nose made it hard for pilots to see the flightdeck in a standard approach, and their wings had uneven stall speeds. I believe it was the left wing that would drop when coming in for a landing. There were also problems with the tailhook, and tail wheel that needed to be corrected, and the oleo landing gear struts were too short causing the landing gear to bounce. That's why the magnificent Corsair went to the marines, (Flying Leathernecks) and the warhorse Hellcat went to the navy. When these problems were corrected, and the Americans adopted the FAA practice of using a curving landing approach the Corsair proved to be a very good carrier aircraft, but in terms of carrier operations the Hellcat was even more ideal.

 

[lhagambia]

I like your idea but does that mean no Hellcat? The Wildcat's shortcomings drove Grumman to quickly build an improved fighter which rules the skies when it entered service. A much improved Wildcat takes away that imperative. There'd still be the Vought Corsair for later in the war and maybe Gumman would switch straight to the Bearcat at an earlier stage of the conflict.

 

[tomo pauk]

I like your idea but does that mean no Hellcat? The Wildcat's shortcomings drove Grumman to quickly build an improved fighter which rules the skies when it entered service. A much improved Wildcat takes away that imperative.

Grumman have had the contract for development of the future Hellcat at 30th June 1941 (a few months before the 1st Merlin was delivered by Packard), and was actually working on a new fighter many months before that. With Vought having the prototype Corsair flying in 1940 wit a 1850 HP engine, it was clear to Grumman that a warmed-up Wildcat will not cut it, hence a whole new fighter that was supposed to have a 1700 HP engine in the nose.

Hellcat ruling the skies in Pacific had a lot to do to the struggles of 1942, that saw Americans out-witting the Japanese at Midway, the grinding at Solomons, Japanese loosing a great deal of both aircraft and crews both due to the USN AAA and fighters, as well as what Army and Marines contributing, plus the Commonwealth. Coupled with Japanese baked-in shortcomings (no industry + no raw materials +no fuel and manpower to fight the global war, no next-gen fighters instead of Zeros, low quality of replacement pilots, bad fleet AAA, only a trickle of radars, bad in anti-sub warfare), American industry, torpedoes being debugged so the subs can do the work - you can bet that Hellcat have a lot work cut for him, good fighter as it was.

A much improved Wildcat would've increased the Japanese losses, and helped prevent some US losses (ships, aircraft and crews) - already in 1942 - thus making the vicious circle even more dire for the Japanese.

 

[Sekhmet_D]

I respect tomo pauk for his great knowledge about WWII and probably later aircraft, but I have to agree with you that inline engines weren't a realistic option for the USN. I'm sure he's right about the technical possibility of redesigning the Wildcat with a Packard Merlin but that was a path the USN would never have gone down.

Some concept art would still be fun to look at, though.

 

[DougM]

But you still can’t get around the simple problem that the Merlin was not and never would have been available in enough numbers to replace the Wildcat/Hell cats with their radial engines.
As we often point out with Japan and Germany. There are limits. So what are you NOT putting Merlin’s in? P-51s?
The Merlin was of a lot more use in Europe than it would ever be in an up gunned Wildcat. And a true Inoine Wildcat is not going to drastically outperform the Hellcat. As the Helcat had other improvements. So your so called in-line Wildcat will turn into an In-line Hellcat NOT an improved Wildcat. It May keep the Wildcat Name but I doubt it, The otl Hellcat is closer to a Wildcat than this up graded in-line aircraft would be and they gave it a new name. So you may have been able to get an in-line Hellcat but you would NEVER see an in-line Wildcat.
I think I will call the Merlin Wild/Hellcat the “Mer-Cat”

And in truth you will never see an inline ANYTHING using Merlin’s in the US Navy until after the fall of Germany or unless Japan is mopping the floor with the best US radial fighters. Which even as poor as the Wildcat was, Japan was not doing. As the Merlin’s were in high demand.

As for the Corsair, yes I know it had issues, and I know what was changed to help and why it went to the Marines. Heck I knew two people that flew then in WW2. And one in Korea. But as big a problem as it was having. If the Navy was THAT desperate for a better fighter they would have pushed through and either put up with it or found work arounds. Yes they had issues but they were not impossible to land just hard. And if Japan is dominating so much that the US 1) puts a whole different type of engine on carriers training the crews to work on them and everything else involved in spinning up inline water cooled engines in a service that only used Air cooled radials and B) is willing to commit that much of its Merlin production to the USN then the US would have to have been desperate indeed.
Remember the Hellcat was built in almost the same numbers as the Merlin Equipped Mustangs. So in order to build these Mer-Cats you are going to lose a LOT of Merlin equipment fighters from somewhere. There was after all a reason the Wallies didn’t stick Merlin’s on everything.
The US and GB LOVED the Merlin and were building them as fast as they could. If the US could have snapped its fingers to make 10k+ more Merlin’s for the Mer-Cat fighters for the navy then the US would have done that OTL for other uses.

 

[DougM]

Actually i disagree that it would be easier to build Merlin equipped Wildcats or Hellcats or Mercats or whatever then to fix the landing issues of the Corsair. Heck GB ultimately did it without rebuilding tons of factories designing a new aircraft, retraining your mechanics and somehow building 10,000-18000 additional Merlins.

 

[tomo pauk]

But you still can’t get around the simple problem that the Merlin was not and never would have been available in enough numbers to replace the Wildcat/Hell cats with their radial engines.
As we often point out with Japan and Germany. There are limits. So what are you NOT putting Merlin’s in? P-51s?
The Merlin was of a lot more use in Europe than it would ever be in an up gunned Wildcat. And a true Inoine Wildcat is not going to drastically outperform the Hellcat. As the Helcat had other improvements. So your so called in-line Wildcat will turn into an In-line Hellcat NOT an improved Wildcat. It May keep the Wildcat Name but I doubt it, The otl Hellcat is closer to a Wildcat than this up graded in-line aircraft would be and they gave it a new name. So you may have been able to get an in-line Hellcat but you would NEVER see an in-line Wildcat.
I think I will call the Merlin Wild/Hellcat the “Mer-Cat”

P-51 never gotten the 1-stage Merlins, and these are suggested for the Wildcat.
I've never suggested that Hellcat is not made, nor that a Wildcat with an 1-stage Merlin will outperform the Hellcat etc. - so why raising these points in the 1st place?

As for the Corsair, yes I know it had issues, and I know what was changed to help and why it went to the Marines. Heck I knew two people that flew then in WW2. And one in Korea. But as big a problem as it was having. If the Navy was THAT desperate for a better fighter they would have pushed through and either put up with it or found work arounds. Yes they had issues but they were not impossible to land just hard. And if Japan is dominating so much that the US 1) puts a whole different type of engine on carriers training the crews to work on them and everything else involved in spinning up inline water cooled engines in a service that only used Air cooled radials and B) is willing to commit that much of its Merlin production to the USN then the US would have to have been desperate indeed.

As note before, Navy - not me - was asking for a fighter with a Merlin (= P-40F) to be tested for carrier suitability, as well as that Corsair is to be made available, since USN was of the opinion that F4F was a worse fighter than the Zero.

Remember the Hellcat was built in almost the same numbers as the Merlin Equipped Mustangs. So in order to build these Mer-Cats you are going to lose a LOT of Merlin equipment fighters from somewhere. There was after all a reason the Wallies didn’t stick Merlin’s on everything.
The US and GB LOVED the Merlin and were building them as fast as they could. If the US could have snapped its fingers to make 10k+ more Merlin’s for the Mer-Cat fighters for the navy then the US would have done that OTL for other uses.

As above - make the Hellcat, by all means.

Actually i disagree that it would be easier to build Merlin equipped Wildcats or Hellcats or Mercats or whatever then to fix the landing issues of the Corsair. Heck GB ultimately did it without rebuilding tons of factories designing a new aircraft, retraining your mechanics and somehow building 10,000-18000 additional Merlins.

I agree that it would've been easier that Corsair is debugged. Even having it much earlier in it's original form would've meant a lot to the Marines.

 

[Llewwyy]

One might argue that the Wildcat is already a wilder version of its biplane origins, F2F. Given what was available for engines the Wildcat is not a bad aircraft, Brown thought highly of it. Not an outstanding fighter but a terrific carrier aircraft.

 

[DougM]

I don’t really care what version of the Merlin we are talking about. It could be a completly mythical version (and would probably have to be to work well at sea) the point is you are asking to build a fighter by the thousands so will need tens of thousands of additional engines. And you can’t just snap your fingers and have and extra 10-15 THOUSAND Merlins. Merlin production was basicly maxed out if the US could have produced more of them they would have. So what are you not putting Merlins in?

And the Wildcat Was a worse fighter than the Zero. But you can’t get a better Wildcat with a Merlin to replace the wildcat in any numbers in a time frame that would beat out the Hellcat. Any attempt at a better Wildcat from day one just delays the Wildcat, and if your are waiting for a Merlin engined Wildcat before Wildcat goes into production you will be in BIG trouble early on as the Merlin didn’t go into production in large numbers until 42 and tht production as used it s not sitting around in a warehouse.
And yes you can gain some designers if you cut the twin engine aircraft out but not enough so that you can 1) Build the original Wildcat, 2) Build this all but brand new Merlin Wildcat and 3) Build the Hellcat and do all that by early 43.

This is a good example of a POD that SEAMS like a good idea but that will ultimately hurt the US overall. The time it will take to get this Wildercat into production, the cost and time needed to creat a program and train people on water cooled inline engines, the increased complexity of supporting two radically different technologies of engines on an already tightly packed carrier and the removal of these Merlin’s from whatever they powered in OTL is not worth whatever TINY advantage having this Wildercat would bring.

There are simply better and easier options to replace the Wildcat. Such as the one that happened in real life. The Hellcat. And the Hellcat is ”good enough” to get the job done. And there is no practical way of getting a substantially better Wildcat on Day on replacing the OTL wildcat.
So I am really confused at what is the point of this?

This topic has turned into another of those “slippery slope“ topics where when one idea is shown to have problems a new idea is tossed out and the goal posts are moved accordingly. Then in an effort to defend said goal we start into the technicalities of the exact wordings. Such as which version of which sub type of which engine was referred to ignore the big picture such as no matter which type of engine we are talking about those engines where limited in number and used elsewhere so using them here means SOMETHING isn’t getting them.
Then when folks start trying to reply we start getting so many variants of what we are talking about that you can’t keep track of who is responding to what.

So I tell you folks what.
Someone needs to state a clear and precise goal of this topic. Then we can discuss why that will or will not work. Then once that is discussed we can consider other options.

The original point of this topic as stated by the OP was to build a wildcat with a different radial engine. Then somehow it became using an inline engine then the Merlin and the changes to the topic kept coming.

Ao I will tell you my contentions and then you can say your goals and we can see if there is an interest in continuing the discussion.

1) The OPs idea of using a different engine does not gain enough to be worth the bother and or delays it would cause.
2) By the time the weakness of the Wildcat was known it was just as fast to build the Hellcat as to ”fix” the Wildcat. And Grumman itself thought so as this is what they did.
3) The Wildcat while out performed by the Zero could if push comes to shove be flown in such a manner as to have a fighting chance.
4) The Wildcat on Dec 7 1941 was better then all the alternatives that were available on Dec 7 1941
5) delaying the Wildcat so it can be slightly better is a BAD idea and thus the USN was better off doing what it did. Build Wildcats and design the Hellcat to replace it ASAP.
6) While the Wildcat needed to be replaced the Hellcat didn’t.
7) Could a better fighter be designed than the Hellcat? Sure. And they were including say the Corsair.
8) The Corsair had issues, but the USN was frankly OVERLY concerned about them. By this I mean that if the USN was getting its a#$ handed to it and the Wildcat/Hellcat combo sucked so badly that the USN was desperate then they COULD have made the Corsair work sooner or if it was really bad they would fixed what they could at that point and put up with it. Desperate times call for desperate measures. But they didn’.t. They stuck it on land. So they could not have been that desperate.
9) Yes an aircraft designed for an inline engine would have been better then the Wildcat and probably have been better then the Hellcat.
10) A redesigned Wildcat with an inline engine crafted on would not have been better then the Hellcat
11) redesigning the Wildcat for this inline engine would re wire so many changes and so much time you may as well design a new aircraft from scratch. And end up with a much better fighter then this FrankenCat. Combing an in-line engine on an airframe designed for a radial.
12) Merlin engines of any type are not going to be available to replace the Wildcat. They were “available” or at least existed in time to replace Hellcat. So you would need to redesign the wildcat as it was already designed by the time the Merlin became “available “ see point 10 and 11 above.
13a) Merlin production was limited.
13b) the US could not easily increas production of the Merlin, otherwise it would have.
13c) All Merlin’s that COULD be produced where and they were used in SOME aircraft SOMEWHERE.
13d) Thus in order to put a Merlin into a USN one fighter means you have to take one Merlin out of some other aircraft,
14) Considering how air combat in the Pacific and the European theater went I think it would be a bad idea and would ultimately do more harm then good to use the limited production of Merlin Engines in the Pacific for USN fighters at the expense of European theater aircraft.
15) The USN had no practical training or suppor program for water cooled engines so setting this up will take money, time, and manpower all of which are limited. As well as increasing the burd on logistics and taking up the limited space on a carrier and limit its flexibility. For example a mechanic experienced and trained on air cooled engines will be less useful to help the watercooled inline mechanics when they need a hand. Thus your flexibility is decreased to some degree.

So in conclusion, this idea will result in a worse outcome for the US as a whole.

 

[alspug]

The aircraft do not have to be the best to do the job required. They need to be available and in sufficent numbers to get the job done.

I like the wildcat. It was rugged and performed well enough to be competitive and not be a sitting target. It served throughout the war and did so with distinction.
It's replacement was a superlative improvement whose performance was far above any modifications to the Wildcat Airframe could handle.

To me this is similar to the SBD Dauntless. It was not the best in it's category on paper, however it was good enough and available in sufficent numbers at the right time to change history.

Examples of practicle impossibilities that could have changed history.

Canadian Merlin production started in 1939/40 and has sufficent surplus to begin making P-40 with two stage Merlin engines and be sent to Malaya. As opposed to Hurricanes etc. Surplas Merlins go into USAAF P-40's and are at Pearl Harbour with 100 available and using a full British style air defence systemm. This is ASB due to how many different decisions need to be hapening to make it occurr., IE it is possible but impossible without ISOT or ASB intervention.

Wildcat gets best version of Engine 2 years ahead of time and thus is superior to Early Zero fighters.

again possible but impossible without ISOT and ASB etc.

The Discussion while centred on Radial engines and airframe was intelligent and well thought out with numerous great posts ON TOPIC.

Some of the posts have devolved into full alteration of airframe to fit an inline engine which changes the aircraft shape entirely and adds no extra performance not reduced by other sacrifices.

The Radial Engine was superior in reliability and damage resistance according to the USN procurement system, if this was not the opinion the Allison Engine which had greater potential than the Merlin would have been the primary engine and further developed.

 

[EverKing]

Thank you.
Brown's research is pre-dated by NACA's testing of the YP-38's aerodynamic qualities and the problems with 'Mach tuck', the test being conducted during the winter of 1941/42, that resulted in two things - fitting of the LE fillet, and placard being attached into the cockpit warning the pilots about the allowed mach number at different altitude bands. Dive flaps for both P-38 and P-47 were in design phase by the time Merlin Mustang was to enter the fight, ie. by late 1943.
Americans knew all too well about the problem before Brown was set to investigate.

@EverKing probably forgotten about this than I know; his thread in this forum.

Still working through the thread but as I was mentioned here I figured I'd chime in early in response.

The NACA study on the YP-38 mentioned was performed Dec 1941 to Jan 1942 with the final report released in Mar 1942. It was the first time 'Compressibility' in a dive was identified in any aircraft. Due to the timing of the study, the only corrective actions added to the production of the P-38 were additional wing fillets at the wing/fuselage junctions.

According to NACA Memorandum Report A7F09 from 1947,

Dive-recovery flaps were tested first in the Ames 16-foot high-speed wind tunnel in October 1942, and were first tested in flight by the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation from December 1942 to April 1943. Subsequent flight tests were made b the Army Air Forces and the Republic Aviation Corporation with a Republic P-47 airplane and by the Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory with a North American XP-51 airplane.

Considering the timing of these US studies, I get the impression Brown was more after data-collection than root-cause analysis. They likely already knew the dive limits were imposed by compressibility but they didn't know the Critical Mach of those various aircraft.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

What is truly fascinating is that few people understand the problem of power and manuvering at alttitude and that for high alttitude work the P-47 with it's huge engine and large wings could turn without stalling much easier. (The Avro Vulcan was reputed to outturn the Phantom at alttitude due to large wings and decent engine power., )The P-38 was a very challenging aircraft for beginner pilots but once mastered was very lethal. The P-51 had excellent flight capabilities at low level as built but needed the Merlin to excel at alttitude.

The M2 50 cal is probably the best aircraft gun of the war due to it's mix of rate of fire and lethality. Yes it's inferior to the Hispano 20mm in it's later iterations but it was available throughout the war and worked rather well.

The weight of the gun was too much for some early british fighters but otherwise would have worked well. 4 0.50 guns would knock down a bomber or fighter faster than 8 0.303. That is my opinion anyway.

The Americans had the luxury of developing multiple fighters at once to an advanced level. Their research facilities did not face a direct threat and joined later as well.

I love the Spitfire and Mosquito as my favorite aircraft of WW2 but the Mustang and P 47 are not far behind. As far as Naval Aircraft I love the Corsair because of it's design and longevity.

The AN/M2 .50 was a good and reliable air gun

However 'had' BuOrd got the AN/M2 20mm (the US made Hispano) working reliably (one of its few real failures in WW2 especially given that the 'fix' was so simple) then we would have seen this weapon equipping US aircraft late war and replacing the .50 cal weapon.

The USN was desperate for it and Col Chin USMC (who you probably know as the chap whot designed the Mk 19 AGL) who was an excellent engineer who worked on improving existing weapons for the navy and marines, was forced to make field 'bodge jobs' to over come the 'built in' head spacing issues that was resulting in light strikes in order to get it into limited service.

The gun despite these flaws was used on the Lightning and installed with an electronic re-cocking system

As it was the AN/m2 .50 was just about good enough (in a way that .30 cal weapons were not beyond 1940/41) especially vs the lighter constructed Japanese aircraft that were later than the Europeans and Americans to adopt armour plating and self sealing tanks and due to the messed up development of US built 20mm Cannon the AN/M2 .50 cal was the only real choice they had.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I have had another thunk on saving weight in order to improve our Wilder Wildcat beyond better streamlining it and making it lighter

So my earlier suggestion was to keep the F4F-4 with 4 guns and not 6 - which was a request of the British as they were then primarily concerned with smacking Condors and twin / triple engine bombers out the sky and they were not convinced that 4 .50s were up to it (rightly or wrongly?) - but the USN pilots complained about as this along with the extra weight of the folding wings reduced the aircraft performance.

However how about we get a bit more radical with the weight saving and go to an 8 gun x AN/M2 .30 cal armament as opposed to the 4 gun x AN/M2 .50 cal armament.

The Gun is 11 Kilos as opposed to 27 Kilos and its ammunition (IIRC) 1/5th the weight of .50 cal

Its rate of fire is 1200 RPM so like the Spitfire MK 1 and Hurricane MK 1 it will be able to spray out 150 rounds per second verses 50 rounds per second for the 4 gun .50 armed fighter.

So 8 guns (88 Kilos) and 600 odd rounds per gun (a belt of 250 rounds is roughly 10 kilos) - so 190 kilos of ammunition - so lets call it 270 Kilos

So 4 guns .50 is (108 Kilos) and 450 odd rounds per gun (100 rounds of belted .50 is about 15 kgs) - so 270 Kilos of ammunition - so lets call it 380 Kilos

So we could save just over 100 kilos for our 'Pacific' F4F-4?

 

[Draconis]

However how about we get a bit more radical with the weight saving and go to an 8 gun x AN/M2 .30 cal armament as opposed to the 4 gun x AN/M2 .50 cal armament.

So we could save just over 100 kilos for our 'Pacific' F4F-4?

Well, if we're just going after early war Oscars and Zeros, Bettys and Sallys and using incendiary ammunition then I think it would have served well enough. Eventually the USN will have to install heavier armament in their F4Fs to deal with the late war Japanese aircraft. But then again, that's what Hellcats and Corsairs were for.

 

[Belisarius II]

I have had another thunk on saving weight in order to improve our Wilder Wildcat beyond better streamlining it and making it lighter

So my earlier suggestion was to keep the F4F-4 with 4 guns and not 6 - which was a request of the British as they were then primarily concerned with smacking Condors and twin / triple engine bombers out the sky and they were not convinced that 4 .50s were up to it (rightly or wrongly?) - but the USN pilots complained about as this along with the extra weight of the folding wings reduced the aircraft performance.

However how about we get a bit more radical with the weight saving and go to an 8 gun x AN/M2 .30 cal armament as opposed to the 4 gun x AN/M2 .50 cal armament.

The Gun is 11 Kilos as opposed to 27 Kilos and its ammunition (IIRC) 1/5th the weight of .50 cal

Its rate of fire is 1200 RPM so like the Spitfire MK 1 and Hurricane MK 1 it will be able to spray out 150 rounds per second verses 50 rounds per second for the 4 gun .50 armed fighter.

So 8 guns (88 Kilos) and 600 odd rounds per gun (a belt of 250 rounds is roughly 10 kilos) - so 190 kilos of ammunition - so lets call it 270 Kilos

So 4 guns .50 is (108 Kilos) and 450 odd rounds per gun (100 rounds of belted .50 is about 15 kgs) - so 270 Kilos of ammunition - so lets call it 380 Kilos

So we could save just over 100 kilos for our 'Pacific' F4F-4?

Respectfully I have to disagree. The AN/M2 .30 Cal. is too light. Although most Japanese aircraft had no armor per say many of them had good structural strength, and strong aluminum skins, along with radial engines. What gave them such a poor reputation was unprotected fuel tanks. The most practical way to save weight on the F4F-4 was simple for the armorers to remove the outer guns and stay with the 4 guns of the F4F-3 and they can increase the ammo load per gun.

 

[Sekhmet_D]

Respectfully I have to disagree. The AN/M2 .30 Cal. is too light. Although most Japanese aircraft had no armor per say many of them had good structural strength, and strong aluminum skins, along with radial engines. What gave them such a poor reputation was unprotected fuel tanks. The most practical way to save weight on the F4F-4 was simple for the armorers to remove the outer guns and stay with the 4 guns of the F4F-3 and they can increase the ammo load per gun.

12x .30 calibre was enough to make an A6M 'disintegrate' if you take a look at what happened at Ceylon. I don't think 8x .30 calibre would be much different.

 

[Belisarius II]

12x .30 calibre was enough to make an A6M 'disintegrate' if you take a look at what happened at Ceylon. I don't think 8x .30 calibre would be much different.

This is obviously a subject that can be debated almost endlessly. A 12X.30 caliber fighter getting a full effect hit on an unarmored fighter should take it down. On the other hand, those Hurricanes weren't very effective overall because they were weighted down. In most areas in Asia where Hurricanes were engaged in sustained combat, they ended up being stripped down in guns, and ammo.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Respectfully I have to disagree. The AN/M2 .30 Cal. is too light. Although most Japanese aircraft had no armor per say many of them had good structural strength, and strong aluminum skins, along with radial engines. What gave them such a poor reputation was unprotected fuel tanks. The most practical way to save weight on the F4F-4 was simple for the armorers to remove the outer guns and stay with the 4 guns of the F4F-3 and they can increase the ammo load per gun.

That was my original suggestion but I'm just looking for additional ways of saving weight while retaining firepower - and this gains another 100 kilos or so