Matrix Games Forums

This plane looks great. It has the range of a B24. I was just about to put a squadron of them on the Long Island for some deep Japanese base snooping. Then I noticed that it is not carrier capable...[:@] Best laid plans....

Anyone have any info as to why? Looks like a vanilla wildcat with extra fuel tanks to me. Seems like it should easily fly off of a carrier. Well, waddle off of a carrier....

I guess it's because it had non-folding wings to allow for more fuel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F4F_Wildcat#F4F-7

Well, I doubt that would stop it as some fixed wings could fly off carriers. But the perhaps you lead me to the right spot. An extra 555 gallons of fuel (over 1500 pounds) would add a tremdendous amount of weight. I doubt that the fully loaded wildcat could get off of a short flight deck or any flight deck for that matter.

Sounds plausible.

The F4F-7 was carrier capable and one was allocated to each CAG in 1942. Soon withdrawn due to operational issues and production limited to only 20 or so. No idea why it is not carrier capable in stock, but there is always the editor.

I loved using F4F-7's till I accidently put their Alt at 6,000 feet over Rabaul and lost an entire squadron

wrong forum

Yow, It would be like flying in a gas can. They would burn nicely if a zero caught up with it. No was those tanks are armored. I wonder how many hours it could stay up for? And frankly, what did these guys do if they had to take a leak?

Taking a leak is no problem, they have a relief tube for that. It the old #2 that is a problem. [8D]

Taking a leak is no problem, they have a relief tube for that. It the old #2 that is a problem.

I bet, turns out this puppy can stay aloft for 24 hours. I understand that "stimulants" were occasionally issued to bomber crews. Hoped they passed some to these pilots

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


The F4F-7 was carrier capable and one was allocated to each CAG in 1942. Soon withdrawn due to operational issues and production limited to only 20 or so. No idea why it is not carrier capable in stock, but there is always the editor.

I'm guessing it's because it's classified as a 'Recon'. Given the nice AE feature that any plane with a camera device can do the recon mission, I suppose classifying it as a 'Fighter' (with no guns!) might make it able to take the 'carrier capable' flag.

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


The F4F-7 was carrier capable and one was allocated to each CAG in 1942. Soon withdrawn due to operational issues and production limited to only 20 or so. No idea why it is not carrier capable in stock, but there is always the editor.

I would love to see an allied player have the F4F-7 carrier capable. Snoop one of my islands or Tfs and I'm going to be pretty sure there is a carrier nearby.

Chez

bah....just send in a destroyer instead. [:D]



here karrier karrier karrier........come attack meeeeee. [:'(]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


The F4F-7 was carrier capable and one was allocated to each CAG in 1942. Soon withdrawn due to operational issues and production limited to only 20 or so. No idea why it is not carrier capable in stock, but there is always the editor.

I would love to see an allied player have the F4F-7 carrier capable. Snoop one of my islands or Tfs and I'm going to be pretty sure there is a carrier nearby.

Chez

Yep, with the 25 hex radius that these puppys have, you will find that carrier fer sure....[8|] Lets see, that's how many thousands of square miles?

And actually, 500 gallons of gas weighs in at about 3000 pounds not the 1500 that I quoted. If they used it on carriers I bet it did not fly with a full tank of gas. Cool plane anyways.

ORIGINAL: crsutton

And actually, 500 gallons of gas weighs in at about 3000 pounds not the 1500 that I quoted. If they used it on carriers I bet it did not fly with a full tank of gas.

Why not? No guns, no ammo. That's a fair amount of weight freed up.

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: crsutton

And actually, 500 gallons of gas weighs in at about 3000 pounds not the 1500 that I quoted. If they used it on carriers I bet it did not fly with a full tank of gas.

Why not? No guns, no ammo. That's a fair amount of weight freed up.

Well the base weight of the plane was just under 6,000 pounds and the maximum takeoff weight is listed as 7,952 so you are really talking about a significant increase over the max takeoff weight. Even stripping out armor and guns a fully loaded 7 had to weigh in over 8,000 pounds. Not saying it would not fly but you are gonna need some runway to get up in the air. But even with a reduced load of gas it still would have had a pretty good range for carrier ops.

I am just speculating here as I don't really know.....

Me too, this is just an interesting tidbit to speculate about. If the take-off weight was really 7,952, then 6,000 + 3,000 exceeds that even for ground take-off. Are you quoting specifically F4F-7 specs or generic F4F specs? I'm thinking they must have "done things" to the '-7 to make it viable.

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


The F4F-7 was carrier capable and one was allocated to each CAG in 1942. Soon withdrawn due to operational issues and production limited to only 20 or so. No idea why it is not carrier capable in stock, but there is always the editor.

I would love to see an allied player have the F4F-7 carrier capable. Snoop one of my islands or Tfs and I'm going to be pretty sure there is a carrier nearby.

Chez

Now why didn't we mod that in... a recon flight on my carrier with an operational range of 25 hexes? I'll take that in a heartbeat. I think that it would help my campaign to keep you confused... [:'(]

There's a wonderful thing on most carriers called a catapult. I'm pretty sure they could launch a fully loaded F4F-7 with no problems, hell they launched P-47's off jeep carriers thanks to catapults, and we're even operating F4U's off jeep carriers in the Korean War.

Gross w/ 685 gals 10328lbs. TO 1340ft/0kn vs 693ft/25kn.