F4F-7

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

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.

I've yet to see a source that confirms the operational IJN CVs (Zuikaku and the three Unryu class) that could use the Myrt when available, actually did so. If you've seen one (a source, that is), let me know as I'd be quite interested.

The dedicated recon type that the Japanese definitely did use operationally from their carriers was the Judy variant. The D4Y1-C took part in the battles of Midway and Santa Cruz, the D4Y2-C was used at Cape Engano.

Buck...I am sure you are right..I did find a list of all the squadrons which used the plane but none were deployed on the ships that I have located..
I remember building a model of one in 1966 (Tamiya?) and it showed the thing taking off from a flat-top on the box lid but the instructions (IIRC) were not in English?

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

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.

Website doesnt say, I wonder if it had to do with the recon setup(weight distribution/fuel) or just a hard landing.

Weight distribution it should not be as fuel tanks were pretty much on the CG. One problem with taking off with max.
weight is if you develop a technical problem just after take-off and have to land again. Not that the problem would
be any worse if this happened in any other plane taking off with max. load. If you have an urgent problem you cannot
fly around to burn off fuel. I suppose that was the purpose of the fuel-dump tube under the Wildcat's rudder, not to
dump fuel to evade any pursuers.

I wonder if they would have allowed a fully loaded photo-Wildcat to land back again at the deck?

Fred

[Buckrock]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Buck...I am sure you are right..I did find a list of all the squadrons which used the plane but none were deployed on the ships that I have located..
I remember building a model of one in 1966 (Tamiya?) and it showed the thing taking off from a flat-top on the box lid but the instructions (IIRC) were not in English?

Box lid illustrations can't lie.

My understanding is that the 601st air group in 1944 was used to act as the air complement on the first-line carriers
of the IJN's Mobile Fleet whenever the fleet was to be called into action. Otherwise they tended to train and operate
from airfields nearby to the Fleet, only really using the carriers for deck qualifications, etc.

The 601st reportedly received their first Myrts while they were in the process of rebuilding at airfields in southern
Japan around the end of '44, after having been recently decimated in operations in defence of the Philippines. It was
planned that they would form the air complements when next needed for the last remaining IJN fleet carriers, the three
Unryu class that were training close by in the Inland Sea.

IIRC, the Japanese then decided in Feb '45 to finally put their last two (Unryu was sunk in Nov '44) fleet carriers
out to pasture for good and instead deploy the barely trained 601st for land-based operations in defence of Iwo Jima,
where of course they were decimated again.

This is all from memory but that was why it did seem unlikely when I was reading about this that the Myrts ever took
part in combat operations from any IJN fleet carriers.

However in defence of your box lid, the Myrts almost certainly would have been landing and taking off from the carriers
at times during their training. Otherwise there would have been a lot of deck accidents when the carriers next went to
sea in defence of the Empire, or at least much more than normal for the Japanese at that point in the war.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Buck...I am sure you are right..I did find a list of all the squadrons which used the plane but none were deployed on the ships that I have located..
I remember building a model of one in 1966 (Tamiya?) and it showed the thing taking off from a flat-top on the box lid but the instructions (IIRC) were not in English?

Box lid illustrations can't lie.

My understanding is that the 601st air group in 1944 was used to act as the air complement on the first-line carriers
of the IJN's Mobile Fleet whenever the fleet was to be called into action. Otherwise they tended to train and operate
from airfields nearby to the Fleet, only really using the carriers for deck qualifications, etc.

The 601st reportedly received their first Myrts while they were in the process of rebuilding at airfields in southern
Japan around the end of '44, after having been recently decimated in operations in defence of the Philippines. It was
planned that they would form the air complements when next needed for the last remaining IJN fleet carriers, the three
Unryu class that were training close by in the Inland Sea.

IIRC, the Japanese then decided in Feb '45 to finally put their last two (Unryu was sunk in Nov '44) fleet carriers
out to pasture for good and instead deploy the barely trained 601st for land-based operations in defence of Iwo Jima,
where of course they were decimated again.

This is all from memory but that was why it did seem unlikely when I was reading about this that the Myrts ever took
part in combat operations from any IJN fleet carriers.

However in defence of your box lid, the Myrts almost certainly would have been landing and taking off from the carriers
at times during their training. Otherwise there would have been a lot of deck accidents when the carriers next went to
sea in defence of the Empire, or at least much more than normal for the Japanese at that point in the war.

The model itself had folding wings for deck use..I know the Judy was used for carrier recon duties.

Most of those Myrts were converted for B 29 interception duties.


Operators

Japan Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service

Naval Air Group Yokosuka Kokutai
121st Kokutai
131st Kokutai
132nd Kokutai
141st Kokutai
171st Kokutai
210th Kokutai
302nd Kokutai
343rd Kokutai
701st Kokutai
723rd Kokutai
752nd Kokutai
762nd Kokutai
801st Kokutai
1001st Kokutai

Aerial Squadron
Reconnaissance 3rd Hikotai
Reconnaissance 4th Hikotai
Reconnaissance 11th Hikotai
Reconnaissance 12th Hikotai
Reconnaissance 102nd Hikotai

Kamikaze
1st Mitate Special Attack Group (picked from 752nd Kokutai)
Sairy? Unit (picked from 752nd Kokutai, no sorties)
Saiun Unit (picked from 723rd Kokutai, no sorties)

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Buck...I am sure you are right..I did find a list of all the squadrons which used the plane but none were deployed on the ships that I have located..
I remember building a model of one in 1966 (Tamiya?) and it showed the thing taking off from a flat-top on the box lid but the instructions (IIRC) were not in English?

The 1/50 scale kit of the Myrt?

US carriers by 1944 carried photographic aircraft for strike photo duties. The strike commander would usually fly a camera equipped F6F.

At the Battle of the Philippine Sea the strike commander was ordered to ditch on the way back, but he pushed through and landed on a carrier, but crashed on landing. He plead with the deck crew not to push his plane over the side before the film could be recovered, but they weren't listening and all the strike photographs went over the side.

Landing from the strike into darkness was complete chaos. There were some amazing stories and some sad ones too.

Bill

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Buck...I am sure you are right..I did find a list of all the squadrons which used the plane but none were deployed on the ships that I have located..
I remember building a model of one in 1966 (Tamiya?) and it showed the thing taking off from a flat-top on the box lid but the instructions (IIRC) were not in English?

The 1/50 scale kit of the Myrt?

US carriers by 1944 carried photographic aircraft for strike photo duties. The strike commander would usually fly a camera equipped F6F.

At the Battle of the Philippine Sea the strike commander was ordered to ditch on the way back, but he pushed through and landed on a carrier, but crashed on landing. He plead with the deck crew not to push his plane over the side before the film could be recovered, but they weren't listening and all the strike photographs went over the side.

Landing from the strike into darkness was complete chaos. There were some amazing stories and some sad ones too.

Bill

All my planes were 1/72nd...Gadzooks I had something like 150 of them, and every month acquired a copy of Flying Review International for the great modellers section...and also read Air Classics every month.(Favorite issue of course was the one about the B 19)...

I told some of you guys a number of years ago that right after the Korean War, dad had a hobby shop and knew all those owners of the (then) fledgling plastic model companies).
I got to meet some of them and in roughly 1965 wrote to the owner of Revell(Lou Roth) with a suggestion of some planes he might consider manufacturing.
Indeed he did build those planes and released them on the same day..The Nakajima "Oscar"...The Polikarpov I 16, and the Brewster Buffalo.
Till then...NOBODY had models of them.
That is my sole claim to fame regarding the world of 1/72nd scale planes.[:D]

[packerpete]

I have read in multiple places that the F4F-7 was very underpowered for the weight. It was so bad that the entire deck length had to be clear, the carrier at max speed and still could not get off the deck without an extremely heavy head wind.
It did, however, fly non stop coast to coast in CONUS, and was allegedly capable of remaining aloft for 24hrs. It was also based on the F4F-3A, not the F4F-4. More details and referances available if required.

[Buckrock]

ORIGINAL: packerpete

I have read in multiple places that the F4F-7 was very underpowered for the weight. It was so bad that the entire deck length had to be clear, the carrier at max speed and still could not get off the deck without an extremely heavy head wind.

Makes sense. I saw in one of the Enterprise reports that the T/O run requirements with full fuel meant no other aircraft could be spotted on deck, which meant a disruption to the carrier's normal CAP/Search/ASW tempo of operations.

It did, however, fly non stop coast to coast in CONUS, and was allegedly capable of remaining aloft for 24hrs.

As some have said...that poor pilot!

In the Naval Air Ferry Command War History is a commentary from one of the ferry pilots discussing the in-flight need to monitor and adjust the F4F-7's fuel between wing tanks so as to keep the aircraft balanced and avoid "some awkward moments". At least it gave the pilot something to do on those long flights.

So what references were you looking at?

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: packerpete

I have read in multiple places that the F4F-7 was very underpowered for the weight. It was so bad that the entire deck length had to be clear, the carrier at max speed and still could not get off the deck without an extremely heavy head wind.
It did, however, fly non stop coast to coast in CONUS, and was allegedly capable of remaining aloft for 24hrs. It was also based on the F4F-3A, not the F4F-4. More details and referances available if required.

What would be most valuable in making an evaluation is the actual empty weight for this specific version of the Wildcat. I would estimate it to at least 4-500 lbs less than the "normal" empty weight - but that is only a rough guess.

Fred

[Buckrock]

Actually, in an empty condition the F4F-7 reportedly weighed more than an empty F4F-3, the aircraft it was originally modified from.
I'm not sure though why you think its empty weight is so important as the key to its long range mission survivability was in its flight
weight during the time it was in enemy air space, as in where enemy fighters and AA could be encountered.

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

Actually, in an empty condition the F4F-7 reportedly weighed more than an empty F4F-3, the aircraft it was originally modified from.

That I very much doubt considering, as I understand it, that armour and weapons were removed. Added weight was wing tanks, camera and auto-pilot. Which is why I think it would be interesting to know the exact empty weight of the version in question.

ORIGINAL: Buckrock I'm not sure though why you think its empty weight is so important as the key to its long range mission survivability was in its flight
weight during the time it was in enemy air space, as in where enemy fighters and AA could be encountered.

In that respect I should not think it was worse off than any other unarmed recce plane of its time. That said, I don't see what AA has to do with it, other than it supposedly did not have armour.

Also, I haven't seen mentioned, not in any of the postings here, anyway, that survivability was the big question. But, any input is appreciated.

Fred

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: packerpete

I have read in multiple places that the F4F-7 was very underpowered for the weight. It was so bad that the entire deck length had to be clear, the carrier at max
speed and still could not get off the deck without an extremely heavy head wind.

I would like to comment a little on this. As I see it, the purpose of an aircraft such as this would be:

1. When a TF Commander wanted info on a distant enemy base that could not, for whatever reason, be verified by own land-based recce, or patrol, planes..
2. ...and/or, when said base was out of reach of his own "scouts" - SBDs.

This could imply a relatively low need for readiness, except for routine CAP's. IOW, little deck activity and therefore available full-length deck take-offs.
To turn it around, if there was a need for maximum deck activity, that would imply that en enemy was sighted and therefore within reach of "normal" scout planes.

As I have suggested in an earlier posting its main mission was probably not, or should not be, that of flying around in the ocean looking for other ships. That
should be the mission of the SBDs with its designated observer.

If we had the empty weight of this Wildcat configuration we could analyze the operational "flyability" of the aircraft.

Fred

[Buckrock]

ORIGINAL: Leandros

That I very much doubt considering, as I understand it, that armour and weapons were removed. Added weight was wing tanks, camera and auto-pilot. Which is why I think it would be interesting to know the exact empty weight of the version in question.

If you're mentioning things like weapons and cameras for the F4F, then you probably don't understand how an american aircraft's empty weight was
determined during WWII. Its the same empty weight that appears in WWII references as well.

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

ORIGINAL: Leandros

That I very much doubt considering, as I understand it, that armour and weapons were removed. Added weight was wing tanks, camera and auto-pilot. Which is why I think it would be interesting to know the exact empty weight of the version in question.

If you're mentioning things like weapons and cameras for the F4F, then you probably don't understand how an american aircraft's empty weight was
determined during WWII. Its the same empty weight that appears in WWII references as well.

If so, maybe you could be so kind as to explain how American aircraft empty weight was determined during WW2..? I'd appreciate that very much.

Fred

[m10bob]

A matter of trivia..Saw the mention of "auto pilot" above.
Non-pilots may not know that in the old days before an auto pilot was invented, but a plane might still be able to "fly itself" for a time.

If there was little or no wind,and no areas of updrafts/downdrafts...a plane will fly straight so long as you set your trim tabs properly...A casual check of the horizon should suffice for a long time, depending on those flight conditions and skill of the pilot.
Single engine planes obtained true auto-pilot capabilities after the multi engined planes got them.

During WW2, especially in the Pacific...if a fighter squadron transferred to a distant base...it was common they would be led by a single multi-engined plane....like a Hudson...to lead them to their new base.

[Buckrock]

ORIGINAL: Leandros

If so, maybe you could be so kind as to explain how American aircraft empty weight was determined during WW2..? I'd appreciate that very much.

Fred

The USN asked Grumman in 1941 for a version of the Wildcat that could fulfill the role of a very long range carrier recon aircraft.
The USN tested Grumman's F4F-7 in early '42 and found it disappointing for its intended role. Examples of the aircraft were then
placed with carriers for the Guadalcanal Invasion in the hope it could still be of some use. That too seemed a bust.

So it seems all you are doing here is trying to reinvent the square wheel.

However, since you asked, the empty weight of an aircraft is its manufacturers "as built" weight, that is without the additional weight
an operator would add for a normal combat use. So for the F4F-7's empty weight, subtract from 10,328lbs the weight of the pilot and his
personal belongings, fuel, oil, comms and navigation equipment, autopilot, camera and various miscellaneous equipment like oxygen tanks,
inflatable raft, etc.

For an F4F-3, you would also subtract the weight of the armament (but strangely not the weight of the armor).

Edit - On further thought, The F4F-7's autopilot weight could well have been part of the official empty weight as it would seem a fairly
complex item to be installed post manufacture. Without seeing a breakdown of the official empty weight of some other aircraft that
carried it (like a B-17), it is going to be hard to determine.

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

ORIGINAL: Leandros

If so, maybe you could be so kind as to explain how American aircraft empty weight was determined during WW2..? I'd appreciate that very much.

Fred

The USN asked Grumman in 1941 for a version of the Wildcat that could fulfill the role of a very long range carrier recon aircraft.
The USN tested Grumman's F4F-7 in early '42 and found it disappointing for its intended role. Examples of the aircraft were then
placed with carriers for the Guadalcanal Invasion in the hope it could still be of some use. That too seemed a bust.

So it seems all you are doing here is trying to reinvent the square wheel.

However, since you asked, the empty weight of an aircraft is its manufacturers "as built" weight, that is without the additional weight
an operator would add for a normal combat use. So for the F4F-7's empty weight, subtract from 10,328lbs the weight of the pilot and his
personal belongings, fuel, oil, comms and navigation equipment, autopilot, camera and various miscellaneous equipment like oxygen tanks,
inflatable raft, etc.

For an F4F-3, you would also subtract the weight of the armament (but strangely not the weight of the armor).

Thank you, come to think of it, it would have been more correct by me to use the expression "operational empty weight" - i.e. without fuel.

Was there ever a "square wheel"...[;)]....?

Anyway, the best way to do this is to work upwards, that is from "empty weight" - as explained by you. I have complete, and detailed, weights
on many different types but for the Wildcat only the "main" weights.

First, a few parameters that have to be decided. As I understand it the basis for the "-7" was the F4F-3, non-foldable wings. I have in front
of me an Aero., Navy Dept. sheet stating that empty weight of the F4F-3 was 5.381 lbs (ferry: 5.228)

Now comes the difficult part - if this information is correct:

Armour, included in the empty weight, was removed - what was the weight of the removed armour?
Aux. tank behind the cockpit area was removed - what was its weight?
Wing tanks, non-self-sealing - approx. 450 gls. capacity were installed (giving a maximum capacity of 555 gls.) - what was the weight of the new tanks?
An F-56 camera was installed where the aux. tank had been before - approximately 75 lbs
An autopilot (type unknown) was added - what was its weight.
Most probably some extra navigational equipment was added - just a hunch - what was its weight?
More oxygen equipment..?...what would that weigh?
Did the F4F-3 have any armour to speak of?

Inputs, or solid info, are appreciated. In the meantime I shall make some very preliminary calculations.

Fred

[Buckrock]

Or maybe you could just do some research. Greene's "History of the Grumman F4F Wildcat" seems to be the go to book for every version of
the Wildcat. It may help you avoid some of the wrong assumptions you've already included in your start list, such as the wing tanks
carrying only 450 gallons.

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

Or maybe you could just do some research. Greene's "History of the Grumman F4F Wildcat" seems to be the go to book for every version of
the Wildcat. It may help you avoid some of the wrong assumptions you've already included in your start list, such as the wing tanks
carrying only 450 gallons.

Thank you - do you know the exact capacity of the wing tanks?

Fred

[Buckrock]

The more reliable sources (ie those that reference Greene) state it as 555 gallons carried in the wings. And as the quote I gave you earlier
from Lundstrom (who also references Greene) indicates, the total fuel carried for a fully loaded F4F-7 was 685 gallons, contained in the
wings as well as the fuselage tank.

Just a bit of online research would probably save you a lot of wasted effort at this point. You might even find out the weight you're after.
Or even why the USN were so disappointed with the aircraft that they gave it to the poor Marines.