Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

I like the F4F-7 too. On paper, it looks like a great idea, but in practice it probably was not practical. Single engine fighter, with an enormous amount of fuel, limited visibility,no navigator, built to fly exclusively over water. Regular single engine fighters had enough navigating over oceans as it was. Reconnaissance aircraft should have at least 2 engines and a dedicated navigator who was really good at his job. Say what you will about the p-38 as a fighter, it must have been comforting to have 2 engines over those long open water flights

The F4F-7 did have one of the most reliable engines of its time - the P & W Twin Wasp, with a double oil reservoir. It also had an autopilot, improved radio and navigation equipment, camera and a glazed cockpit floor. It could dump its fuel, even had - a "tube"....[;)]. As for navigation, who says it was built to fly exclusively over water? I would also expect that only the best pilots were picked to fly long-range missions in the F4F-7.

Also, while it could carry 500+ gallons of fuel, it could do a good job with 300 onboard, too. The P-36 with the same engine, flown economically, had a range of more than 1.200 sm/200 mph.. with less than 150 gallons of fuel (89 octane).

Talking about the P-36, everybody playing the allied side in WITP should insist on having its performance upgraded in the game. It was the only allied fighter that could actually turn and climb with the Zero. I am talking about the US 1941 version with the 1.200 hp. engine and standard 1941 equipment. That engine was the same engine as the 1.050 hp version, only adjusted for the use of 100 octane fuel (as used in the P-40's Allison engine). Most P-36 performance figures I have seen are quoted for the 1.050 hp. engine, even if the latest engine as such is rated at 1.200 hp.

The P-36 had about equal wing loading and better power/weight ratio and roll ratio than the Zero. While I believe it is generally acknowledged that the Zero's high-speed handling qualities were less than optimal, the P-36's were excellent.

The 100 octane fuel made a marked difference in performance as the British also experienced in the Fall of 1940 with the Spitfire, particularly in the climb. P-36 MTOW time to 15.000 was less than five minutes - 10 minutes to 22.000! Would the US pilots in the Philippines have loved that in December 1941!

Max level speed has little meaning when the turning and climbing starts!

Fred

P.S.: The last chapter in my 8th book of my "Saving MacArthur" series cover the flight of an F4F-7 from Manila to Japan and back.

I love that airplane and always increase its numbers in the editor prior to start. I don't know of a thread, but you can load the editor from the start menu and mess around with different things, being careful to save the file under a non-existing scenario number so you don't screw anything up. The different aircraft will be in there and you can tweak the start dates, end dates and production numbers.

Cheers,
CB

ORIGINAL: CaptBeefheart

I love that airplane and always increase its numbers in the editor prior to start. I don't know of a thread, but you can load the editor from the start menu and mess around with different things, being careful to save the file under a non-existing scenario number so you don't screw anything up. The different aircraft will be in there and you can tweak the start dates, end dates and production numbers.

Cheers,
CB

The F4F-7 or the P-36..[:)]..?

Fred
-----

Would that 1200 HP P-36 be somehow the equivalent to the CW-21?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss-Wright_CW-21

they were not well armed, or at least not in view of "western" customers. USA and UK pilots prioritized well armed planes, even at the cost of making them heavy, less maneuverable

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Would that 1200 HP P-36 be somehow the equivalent to the CW-21?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss-Wright_CW-21

they were not well armed, or at least not in view of "western" customers. USA and UK pilots prioritized well armed planes, even at the cost of making them heavy, less maneuverable

I believe that it would be the Mohawk, Hawk 75M, or something like that. Unfortunately, I can not seem to get to wikipedia for some reason.

yes I am talking performance wise, CW-21 was a different plane, built by a different company

If you have an editable scenario in use, aircraft type and ship class type edits will 'take'.

So, chazz, it depends if you used a standard or modded scenario. If the latter, yes you can change the monthly rate and end dates.

ORIGINAL: Leandros

Talking about the P-36, everybody playing the allied side in WITP should insist on having its performance upgraded in the game. It was the only allied fighter that could actually turn and climb with the Zero. I am talking about the US 1941 version with the 1.200 hp. engine and standard 1941 equipment. That engine was the same engine as the 1.050 hp version, only adjusted for the use of 100 octane fuel (as used in the P-40's Allison engine). Most P-36 performance figures I have seen are quoted for the 1.050 hp. engine, even if the latest engine as such is rated at 1.200 hp.

The P-36 had about equal wing loading and better power/weight ratio and roll ratio than the Zero. While I believe it is generally acknowledged that the Zero's high-speed handling qualities were less than optimal, the P-36's were excellent.

The 100 octane fuel made a marked difference in performance as the British also experienced in the Fall of 1940 with the Spitfire, particularly in the climb. P-36 MTOW time to 15.000 was less than five minutes - 10 minutes to 22.000! Would the US pilots in the Philippines have loved that in December 1941!

Planes without armor were considered in US, unfit for front-line duty. That's why they were never sent to front, but there should be almost 200 available for defense of West Coast. If KB would decided to attack HOLLYWOOD, every Wild Bill Kelso should be ready to defend the skies.
And game gets P-36 armament wrong. 0.30 and 0.50 cal were factory settings, but Army planes had additional four 0.30 cal in wings.

I bet they didn't "roll like a Zero" with 4 additional 30 cals [:D]

ORIGINAL: inqistor
Planes without armor were considered in US, unfit for front-line duty. That's why they were never sent to front, but there should be almost 200 available for defense of West Coast. If KB would decided to attack HOLLYWOOD, every Wild Bill Kelso should be ready to defend the skies.

The P-36 also had the issue of an engine optimized for combat at 10-12000ft. By 1941 the USAAC were following the European lessons that favored heavier armament, armor and the need for good fighter performance at medium-high altitudes. By that standard the P-36 was now considered obsolete.

Based on the AAF records for 1941, there were around 120 P-36s (P-36As and P-36Cs) available on the continent, spread from Alaska down to Panama. It's likely after several years of abuse in training up the expanding air force that not all of these would have been flyable and would probably have been cannibalized to keep the majority flying in case of a "HOLLYWOOD" style emergency.

And game gets P-36 armament wrong. 0.30 and 0.50 cal were factory settings, but Army planes had additional four 0.30 cal in wings.

The USAAC's P-36A at the time of the Pacific War only appears to have been equipped in service with the two cowl mounted MGs, as in the game. The USAAC's two dozen P-36Cs (IIRC, not in the game) were equipped with the same cowl guns but had also had changes to their wings to allow a .30 cal MG to be installed (one in each wing). There were also more heavily armed versions of the P-36 but these all appear to have been single examples of modified aircraft used to test different engines and armament layouts.

Joe Baugher's website gives a good coverage of the P-36 models here - http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p36.html

ORIGINAL: inqistor

Planes without armor were considered in US, unfit for front-line duty. That's why they were never sent to front, but there should be almost 200 available for defense of West Coast. If KB would decided to attack HOLLYWOOD, every Wild Bill Kelso should be ready to defend the skies.

Well, the P-40Bs in the Philippines did not have armour or self-sealing fuel tanks, either. The P-40Es did, but Bartsch in his "Doomed at the start" writes that the pilots there actually preferred the "B" because of its better range, climb and turn performance (lighter).

Kelso flew a P-40...[;)]

ORIGINAL: inqistorAnd game gets P-36 armament wrong. 0.30 and 0.50 cal were factory settings, but Army planes had additional four 0.30 cal in wings.

Buck is correct, the USAAC P-36s did not have wing-mounted MGs in December '41. This can be seen from actual pictures at the time. Thirty-some were modified at one time but were modified back to the original configuration. However, to mount a second .50 in the nose was a simple operation. It was tried by the USAAC and was the standard on the Norwegian and Dutch Hawk 75 orders in 1939/40.

That said, the quoted web-site is conspicious for not having any references to Beauchamp and Cuny: Curtiss Hawk 75 - the P-36/Hawk 75 bible - to me, anyway. 344 pages of P-36 and Hawk75, the export model.

Fred

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

I bet they didn't "roll like a Zero" with 4 additional 30 cals [:D]

How much would you like to bet..[;)]

Fred

In a experimental mod that I've been playing against the AI ("Richardson's war") I opened the plane up to a much greater production and made it CV capable (just like real life). Then I followed modern CV practices (till the late 1970's-early 1980's) of placing a small :det." on each CV. It's worked out very well in helping me decide which island to raid. [:)]