McPherson
Banned
With 1 of 2 naval aviators DYING in operational accidents in the 1930s... not even wartime loss rates expected, (70%) embrace the suck.
F5F or F4F. Did the U.S. Navy make the right choice?
- Thread starter Draconis
- Start date
With 1 of 2 naval aviators DYING in operational accidents in the 1930s... not even wartime loss rates expected, (70%) embrace the suck.
marathag
Banned
Data I listed for 'initial Climb'
Found this for time to altitude for the XF5F
4.2 minutes to 10,000 ft and 9.3 to 20,000 ft
Not quite as awesome, still close to what the A6M2 11 was doing. The Hawk 75 Manual for 1939 gives
9840 feet for 3.52 min and 19,680ft for 5.83 min,that was with one .50 and one .30
marathag
Banned
https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threa...rumman-xf5f-skyrocket-was-at-sea-level.44060/
and the other was the Curtiss specifications manual
My old copy of Caidins 'Zero Fighter has in the appendices"
A6M1............... 5 min 54 seconds to 16,405 feet. = 2780 fpm This is described as the prototype
A6M2 Model 12 7 min 27 seconds to 19,685 feet. = 2642 fpm
A6M2 Model 13 7 min 27 seconds to 19,685 feet. = 2642 fpm First primary production variant
Those are with the 950 hp engines. When the list comes to the 1130 hp engines
A6M3 model 22. 4500 fpm is given, ditto for the
A6M5 Model 52
Climb rates for the other later models are not given except for the
A6M5c Model 553c =3140 fpm. This was described as with a unsuccessful methanol injection engine & only 93 were built.
The 4500 fpm does seem excessive. A look at some info on aircraft climb rates provides some formula, and the general information that the lower the air density the faster the climb rate at a steady power setting. The 4500 fpm may reflect a climb rate measured at a relatively high altitude, & not a average taken from a 0 to 19,000 ft altitudes, as well as the higher hp engine.
The F5F simply ran out of time, or maybe it is better to say time outran it. It was still teething in early 1942, and was not ready for prime time. The fleet needed fights NOW and the F4F was a serviceable option until the F4U got squared away or the F6F made its curtain call. Even Grumman realized by Spring of 1942 that that ship had sailed, and put the F7F on offer in its place. Of course the Tigercat was too much for the Essex class to handle by the time it was ready to go, and the war ended before the Midway class ships were available.Both of these fighters were built by Grumman. The F5F's performance was as good as the Grumman F6F Hellcat which wasn't introduced into service until early 1943. Because it wasn't possible to have the single engined Hellcat or Corsair put into service earlier because their engines (Pratt and Whitney R-2800s) weren't available in the 1940-1941 time frame.
By the simple measure of putting 2 Wright R-1820s (a very reliable engine) on a new airframe it could have been possible to have Hellcat performance level airplanes being put into squadron service in 1941 instead of the F4F. And a solid Grumman design too. Imagine what tactics Jimmy Thach and his peers would have developed with its superior performance.
But the U.S. Navy said no thanks. They preferred the single engine F4F. I would think the biggest drawback with the F5F Skyrocket was the carrier air groups would have had to conduct operations with a smaller number of fighters because the F5F would need more deck space even though the outer wing panels did fold back over the engines. And of course they would require more maintenance hours and parts. Was the higher expense still a big concern after the Fall of France and the Two-Ocean Navy Act?
But would the advantages of having a superior and faster fighter than the Zero with better survivability due to its two engines outweigh the disadvantage of having smaller fighter squadrons? Another plus to consider is due to their light weight and high power loading I think the F5F would have been able to operate from the escort carriers with their shorter flight decks and slower speeds. Maybe GM could/should have been building FM Skyrockets in 1943 to 1945.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_XF5F_Skyrocket
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F4F_Wildcat
So, was this a squandered opportunity for an earlier advantage in the Pacific War or a costly mistake avoided?
McPherson
Banned
Good data.
This is what I found for the original XF5F.
XF5F-1 and XFL-1 194
Correct. The F4U turned out to be another bolo that John Towers managed to muff up for the British to "fix". The F6F was a happy accident that the Japanese aided with a crashed Zero in the Aleutians. With Towers out of the way and the war on it was "expedited" to the fleet complete with its flaws, but there in time to chop the IJNAS to ribbons.
The Germans had a similar choice...
In the end their Elmer Fudd was named Erhard Milch. Notice that he blamed Fatso for HIS mistakes? Towers never did admit he screwed up either.
What plane did you want to illustrate your point about the Germans? I don't think you meant the Westland Whirlwind.
Considering it was flying in April 1940 I don't think the F5F ran out of time but rather support.Grumman did not pursue a full scale effort to further develop it after the Navy selected the F4F. Grummans' further development of the F5F as the XP-50 was aimed more for the AAF. It was a turbocharged plane. Something the Navy did not want at the time. The AAF rejected it as they were getting fighters with better performance then the P-50. Grumman did use what they learned from the project to develop the F7F.
But what if the Navy had selected the F5F instead of the F4F? With a full scale effort by Grumman to bring it into service either with the short or long nose wouldn't it had been in squadron service by early 1942?
But what if the Navy had selected the F5F instead of the F4F? With a full scale effort by Grumman to bring it into service either with the short or long nose wouldn't it had been in squadron service by early 1942?
McPherson
Banned
Grumble... grumble... That was a British bolo. Here forthwith is it, the FW 187 Falke..
Since I boloed the Westland Whirlwind I might as well name the British Elmer Fudd. Sir Kingsley Wood was the chap and he [had] lots of assistance. W. E. W. "Teddy" Petter designed a dandy little kite that lacked lateral stability (tail control) and he included useless Handley Page slats that had to be wired shut so the plane could be safe to take off and land. Aside from those two pilot killer quirks, it was a beautiful bird to fly.
Last edited:
And in the interests of bringing up some fantastic Just Leo art, here's an earlier F5F thread:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/grumman-f5f-3-skyrocket.385335/
In essence I'd favor the "long-nose" proposal for the F5F (https://hangar47.com/grumman-xf5f-skyrocket-preview/, https://modelingmadness.com/review/allies/us/hornerf5f.htm) rather than the XP-50 for the Navy version. I like the idea of a WWII era "Macnamera" decision to have a 'common' aircraft for the services in an F5F/P-50 though it's kinda bad for Lockhead and the P-38. The over-the-nose visibility issues I can see mandating a quick switch to a tricycle gear arrangment. And yes I fully agree with it being called the F5F Thundercat
Randy
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/grumman-f5f-3-skyrocket.385335/
In essence I'd favor the "long-nose" proposal for the F5F (https://hangar47.com/grumman-xf5f-skyrocket-preview/, https://modelingmadness.com/review/allies/us/hornerf5f.htm) rather than the XP-50 for the Navy version. I like the idea of a WWII era "Macnamera" decision to have a 'common' aircraft for the services in an F5F/P-50 though it's kinda bad for Lockhead and the P-38. The over-the-nose visibility issues I can see mandating a quick switch to a tricycle gear arrangment. And yes I fully agree with it being called the F5F Thundercat
Randy
Well to be honest the reasons were pretty valid:
1) The Navy would get two (2) F4F's for the cost of one (1) F5F and despite the spending increases money was still tight
2) That also meant that Grumman would be building and selling two (2) F4F's instead of just one (1) F5F
3) The F4F was "ready" now for operational deployment and the F5F was not. Granting that the superior performance of what the XF5f could become was awsome the fact remains they need something 'now' rather than 'soon'
4) As noted the Navy would have fewer F5F than F4F if for no other reason due to space constraints alone. And what's the learning curve going to be like both on-board and in the air? Going from singles to twins is a big change.
5) Higher maintenance costs and complexity are an issue as is more training, required spare depth and support personnel, but it IS the military so adaption is required anyway
6) The BIG problem related to #3 above and the reason you got 'dogs' like the F2A Buffalo: Time. The F2F and F4F were first flown in 1937, the F5F didn't fly until 1940 and wasn't proposed until 1938 so it actually isn't even in the competition let alone running if we're being honest.
Ok, my 'take' is it was still a missed opportunity especially when one considers the performance compared to the F2A and earl F4F's but the time factor is really what causes the 'miss' here not anything the Navy or Grumman can be blamed for. By the time it flies your main concern is getting 'something' out to the troops rather than getting them 'something-better' when it's too late. For example in 1939 the Finn's, Dutch and British needed "aircraft that were operationally in service" not prototypes so they bought F2A's because those 'fit' the requirments.
To get a good shot at production I'd suggest that in 1936, when Grumman decided to 'redesign' the F3F biplane into the XF4F monoplane to 'backup' the F2A Buffalo they go all in on performance and propose what we know as the F5F today. (Confusingly if accepted it would be in fact TTL's "F4F" design
) Despite some initial Navy objection, (again cost and space concerns are brought up but even if the proposed performance is overly optimstic the 'leap' is going to be highly tempting) a Department of War policy of inter-service inter-operability on at least one airframe along with Army Air Corps Circular Proposal X-608 which called for the development of a "twin-engine, high-altitude "interceptor" having "the tactical mission of interception and attack of hostile aircraft at high altitude" and set out some of the toughest specifications every given to the aviation industry. It was the "extra point" that this circular granted for using a 'tricycle landing gear arrangment' along with issues of visibility over the new aerodynamically required nose that pushed Grumman to move away from the original prototype 'tail-dragger' configuration.This leads to an operational prototype first flight of early 1938 with orders from both the Navy/USMC (F5F "Thundercat") and the Army (P-50 "ThunderHawk" with the XP-38 designtation being saved for a 'backup' design from Lockheed using a unique push/pull configuration) with several overseas buyers, (notably the French and Royal Navy's) and first deliveries begining in Feburary 1940. (Assume anyone who got an two F4F's now get one F5F with some of them going to the Army as P-50s, probably less than a dozen initially, by the outbreak of war) The initial model of the F5F-1/P-50A mounted four (4) Browning .50 caliber machine guns though the Army specification had called for mounting cannons it was not until the -3/B model that one (1) Hispano 20mm cannon was installed in addition to the heavy machine guns. Later in varients of the -4/C model two (2) cannon and two (2) heavy machine guns would be mounted as standard. Various under-side munitions options were proposed but the only standard mountings were a set of under fuselage hard points for one (1) 2000lb or 1000lb General Purpose bomb or fuel drop tank or four (4) 500lb General Purpose bombs. Additionally later models aquired outboard (wing) hard points for mounting such High Velocity Aircraft Rockets (HAVR's) with provision for mounting up to ten (10) total in two groups of five (5).
Tests were conducted with the F5F in fitting a single torpedo in the center-line position but this was not used operationally it did however lead to the ability of the F5F's successor, the F7F Hellcat, ("Wildcat" got regulated to the F6F TTL so "Hellcat" was available) to mount an airial torpedo as a standard.
In addition to the fighter versions both F5F's and P-50s were built in reconnisennce versions though the Army and USMC were the main users of these specilized aircraft. In addition several F5F-6/P-50L's were modified late in the war to include a under-nose radar and a second seat for a radar operator. In addition the guns and cannon were outfitted with flash surpressors and the aircraft painted a mat black for use as Night Fighters which were used in both Europe and the Pacific. By this point in the war the Army was in fact replacing its P-50s with Lockheed P-38 "Arrow" fighters which were both faster and more heavily armed than the P-50s it replaced. The P-50s were redesignated as A-50s and regulated to ground attack and support roles for the remainder of the war.
By mid-1945 the F4F was showing its age and was being replaced at a steady rate by newer, more powerful F7F and F8F's in the fighter and fleet protection roles. The Navy transfered it's last operational F5F to the Marines in early 1946. The USMC continued to use the F5F all the way into the Korean and early in the Vietnam wars. Oddly surviving F5F's do very well in the modern air racing circuit where they out-turn the more modern F7F and Arrow's and are the more 'popular' entry.
Randy
Two pictures comparing the short and long nose Skyrockets. It's been suggested that the short nose's forward visibility was impeded by the wings leading edge thereby causing difficulties for carrier landings. And that lengthening the nose was a fix for this. But a close examination of the two different models would indicate otherwise. Notably the location of the cockpit which in both planes is just slightly forward of the wings trailing edge. Also the height of the cockpit is the same in both planes.
So it appears there would be the same sight lines to the wing leading edges in both models. Going by these photos I think the short nose Skyrocket had the better forward visibility. In fact I would think it's the long nose version which would have had a reduced forward visibility. But with the sloping downward nose probably not too bad. Certainly far better then a F4U and maybe a little better than the F6F.
The main reasons for lengthening the nose were to improve aerodynamics, to reduce drag and to allow the nose gear to be fitted for the tricycle landing gear. And add a bit more room for armaments.
As I understand it the main difference between the long nose XF5F and the XP-50 was the XP-50s' Wright R-1820s were fitted with the same turbochargers that the B-17s' R-1820s used as the AAF wanted better high altitude performance. The XF5Fs for the Navy used R-1820s fitted with the two-speed superchargers similar to the early F4Fs.
Last edited:
Unfortunately the FW-187 used the same engines as the Luftwaffe's darling Me-109. Given limited German production capability and the fact the Germans were heavily outnumbered the choice between one FW-187 or two Me-109s was no choice at all.Grumble... grumble... That was a British bolo. Here forthwith is it, the FW 187 Falke..
Since I boloed the Westland Whirlwind I might as well name the British Elmer Fudd. Sir Kingsley Wood was the chap and he [had] lots of assistance. W. E. W. "Teddy" Petter designed a dandy little kite that lacked lateral stability (tail control) and he included useless Handley Page slats that had to be wired shut so the plane could be safe to take off and land. Aside from those two pilot killer quirks, it was a beautiful bird to fly.
A redesign using different engines would have been immediately accepted for service after the Me-210 debacle.
If the Vulture engines hadn't utterly failed so miserably a modified whirlwind probably would have seen service.
@RanulfC That's an interesting take you have on a possible ATL use of the F5F and its variants. And I appreciate the link to Just Leos' thread about a turbocharged inline Continental engined version. It was a nice reminder of Just Leo and his talent for making excellent drawings of airplanes both real and imagined.
One point regarding the smaller squadron sizes. If the pilots flying the F5F, which I think had a performance similar to the F6F Hellcat, were to achieve near OTL F6F Hellcat kill ratios against the Japanese and also gain the benefit of enhanced survivability that having two engines brings then the smaller numbers are not as critical.
Basically producing the F5F would have been a practical way to equip U.S. Navy squadrons with a airplane that over matches the Japanese about one full year before the Hellcat starts entering squadron service. Also this doesn't prevent or delay the development and deployment of the F6F or the F4U. It prevents the deployment of the F4F Wildcat. It's not needed. I think the F5F could have been flown from escort carriers as a fighter and as a fighter bomber. Smaller numbers sure but packing a bigger punch.
One point regarding the smaller squadron sizes. If the pilots flying the F5F, which I think had a performance similar to the F6F Hellcat, were to achieve near OTL F6F Hellcat kill ratios against the Japanese and also gain the benefit of enhanced survivability that having two engines brings then the smaller numbers are not as critical.
Basically producing the F5F would have been a practical way to equip U.S. Navy squadrons with a airplane that over matches the Japanese about one full year before the Hellcat starts entering squadron service. Also this doesn't prevent or delay the development and deployment of the F6F or the F4U. It prevents the deployment of the F4F Wildcat. It's not needed. I think the F5F could have been flown from escort carriers as a fighter and as a fighter bomber. Smaller numbers sure but packing a bigger punch.
marathag
Banned
PoD is after Grumman lose the initial fighter contract from their quickfix of shedding a wing from the F3F to make a monoplane, they go all in on the XF5F, that had been kicking around on paper since 1937, for a twin setup using the lighter, smaller diameter 850hp P&W R-1535 Twin Wasp Junior.
I like your idea about Leroy Grumman having to take a different strategy except for the part about an engine change. I'd hate to see them install a lower horsepower engine. Was there a problem with the availability of the Wright R-1820 in 1940-1941? Remember this plane has to go against Zeros flown by some of the best fighters pilots in the world in 1942-1943. The ability to fly boom and zoom tactics are essential. And then later on they will be facing Tonys and Hanks as well.
Two pictures comparing the short and long nose Skyrockets. It's been suggested that the short nose's forward visibility was impeded by the wings leading edge thereby causing difficulties for carrier landings. And that lengthening the nose was a fix for this. But a close examination of the two different models would indicate otherwise. Notably the location of the cockpit which in both planes is just slightly forward of the wings trailing edge. Also the height of the cockpit is the same in both planes.
Actually the first is the original short-nose XF5F, the second is the long-nose XP-50 which is a re-design/re-build of the XF5F. This:
Is the "long-nose" XF5F note the 'slightly' different angles and viewing fields. Also note it is at this point still a "tail-dragger" landing gear set up.
The short-nose actually had a pretty good visibility for the higher angle "tail-dragger" landing but there was a problem with the aerodynamics of the short-nosed version DUE to the short-nose. So they put a longer nose on it as per the above in-flight picture but quickly found that once in the nose-high landing mode the pilot had difficulty seeing a stationary patch of marked runway simulating a carrier deck. (This was also an issue when moving around with a tail-dragger because you were ALWAYS 'nose-high' which could lead to running over people on deck, running off the side of the deck or even into that rack of bombs you didn't see sitting there because you litterally couldn't see it
) So they put the tricycle fear on it and faried the nose down to a point and rebuilt the cockpit.Yep, heck even the P-40 had issues with 'seeing' where you were going on the ground. And then there was the "Jug"
IIRC also a slide slip and instability issue with the short nose when manuevering which the extended nose got rid of.
I can't actually 'see' it from the photo's but according to the texts I read they also actually moved the engine nacelles a bit backwards to improve the balance for the tricycle gear and pilot visibility.
Thanks and yes
Ok, I'll bring it up before McPherson does; Everything being equal that would be true but it's obviously NOT going to be equal because the US is seriously behind both in training and doctrine which will be a factor early on. OTL by the time the F6F came out (1942) we had had experience, (mostly bad but with a LOT of learning being done by the survivors) in fighting the Axis and it's those hard-earned lessons that allowed, along with the performance capability of the aircraft, to get those kill rates. Even with in some ways superior performance we're not going to see that early on and in fact the added performance will likely see higher losses due to overconfidence and lack of experiance.
Like OTL pilots will be trained to use the performance they have to make standard attacks on 'enemy' forces which in most cases means trying to engage in turning dogfights with more manuverable aircraft because that's what they are taught to do. And that means despite the superior performance of their aircraft the pilots are in a battle they initially can't win. They WILL learn, (we did OTL after all) but it's likely the obvious (on paper) superiority advantage is going to make those lessons more, not less difficult to learn. While I agree that it probably won't be as bad as having obviously inferior aircraft to work with also keep in mind that OTL that was in some cases an early wake up call vis-a-vis foreign use for "obsolete" aircraft versus clearly over-matching opponents which won't be the case TTL.
I think that the F5F can operate off escort carriers as well but it's a question of will they given the ability to 'pack' in larger numbers of smaller aircraft. Take the French and British for example. They bought the F4F OTL due to not having an available airframe of their own but still do they want to use something that's going to obviously be bigger and more complicated than the design they are aiming for or something that is more in line with the future capabillty they are already aiming for? Compare a Skyrocket to a Seafire for example, the former is a LOT different both operationally and performance wise than the latter and having to transition back and forth 'eventually' would likely mean on most basic level they will instead opt for something similar in nature to the upcoming Seafire rather than the Skyrocket. (No F4F probably means some different version of the F2A or maybe an Navalized version of the P-37 or P-40) I made the assumption that performance would actually trump over operations and economics but that's being pretty generous.
As pointed out where they can be used effectivly and where they aren't squandered by bad tactics, doctrine or training/over-confidence they will be a very rude shock. Zoom-and-boom, hit and run and keeping out of a turning fight with the enemy they are going to shine and tear things up. But there will be fewer of them as well which means they will be a thinner margine for error and forgiveness.
For example, using my 'logic' there would be only 6 F5F's on Wake Island (https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/USMC-C-Wake.html) prior to the attack. Kill 4 on the ground with two on air patrol means there are only two left. I'd see them doubling their bomber count OTL, (4 instead of 2 on the subsequent raid downed) but that's out of a total of 36 so still not at all decisive. Being generous again lets say those two still sink a destroyer on the first invasion attempt and one on the second and still kill the same number of airplanes etc. (And this assumes they aren't being 'attritted' slowly as the OTL F4Fs were dropping one by one over time, all being put out of action by December 21st OTL)
Absent the reliefe force pushing on despite understanding (only partially false data) there being at least two Japanese carriers (true) and a pair of fast battleships (false) plus escorts and transports against a single US carrier, (which was vitally important to operations in the Pacific) three cruisers and 10 destroyers. Arrival was calculated to be on December 23rd and the Japanes were already on the island as of the 22nd. Keep in mind that Saratoga was short on aircraft, (OTL 13 Wildcats, so call it 7 F5Fs) and the 'relief' Marine Air unit had only F2A's with no carrier experiance. Odds don't look good at all.
So until both experiance and numbers begin to show up significantly (early 1942-ish) the actual effect of the F5F is going to be minor at best. Once they do however the odds go against the Japanese exponentially.
Randy
The P&W R-1535 Twin Wasp Junior (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_&_Whitney_R-1535_Twin_Wasp_Junior) was used in both the F2F and F3F-1 so it'd be a known factor whereas the Wright R-1820-40/42's, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_R-1820_Cyclone) were newer. Raw horsepower is lower but the TWJ was used in the Fokker G. I. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_G.I) which boasted similar performance. Not sure why it would be required since the Cyclone was available and in use?
Randy
