Page 1 of 6
F4F-7
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2016 11:31 pm
by AW1Steve
A question for airplanes experts. It was my understanding that the F-4F-7 was a Wildcat stripped of all guns and with a non-folding wet wing with pretty incredible RECON capabilities. Barrett Tillman and other authors said that not only was it CV capable , but that most CV's at the time of Guadalcanal carried at least one. I've got a squadron , which I've been using extensively from land bases , but can't get it to fly out to a CV. Am I doing something wrong or is it not CV capable in the game for some reason? Many thanks in advance for any and all help. [:)]
RE: F4F-7
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 12:13 am
by wdolson
Is the plane carrier capable in the database?
Bill
RE: F4F-7
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 12:15 am
by btd64
Yes. I've never had a problem putting them on a CV. Post a image....GP
RE: F4F-7
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 12:45 am
by IdahoNYer
ORIGINAL: wdolson
Is the plane carrier capable in the database?
Bill
Not in DBB-C
RE: F4F-7
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 12:50 am
by crsutton
F4F 7 is not carrier capable in the game. It probably should be but it is not in either stock or in DaBabes mods. They were used in the Solomon campaign and some sources state that each carrier was assigned one aircraft. just open up my game to make sure and it can only be transferred to a docked ship.
RE: F4F-7
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 2:40 am
by Alfred
It was overweight and not a successful carrier aircraft.
Quite a conscious decision by the devs to not make it "carrier capable".
Alfred
RE: F4F-7
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 6:02 am
by Buckrock
The Saratoga, Enterprise and Hornet each carried a single F4F-7 in addition to their normal CAG complement as a trial during the period
Jul-Sep '42. The F4F-7 was considered a recon-utility aircraft to be used by the VF squadrons if a relevant mission was required. No
use was found for this unarmed recon "fighter" during the trial period and since it was disliked by both the pilots and the deck crews,
the F4F-7s were off-loaded in September '42 and handed over to the Marines for land based use in the Guadalcanal campaign.
So while it was historically carrier capable, it appears not to be carrier wanted by the USN.
RE: F4F-7
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 10:20 am
by Leandros
ORIGINAL: Alfred
It was overweight and not a successful carrier aircraft.
Quite a conscious decision by the devs to not make it "carrier capable".
Alfred
Looking at the information offered here - how could it be "overweight" with
armaments and armour removed and no wing-folding mechanism? Of course, the
reason for all this was to get more space, and weight, for fuel. I should think
the weight of cameras would add up to much less than armament and armour. Fuelled
up for a max endurance recce flight it would certainly be heavy. That was,
after all, the purpose of the modifications - to make it heavy - with fuel.
But, half-way through the mission, lightened, it would handle much better.
And I'm sure it would be less than popular with crews, not having neither armaments
nor armour. Not to talk about navigating alone over distances such as it was capable
of. It would take a special sort of pilot to like that. The ship's crew would also
dislike the non-folding wings, taking up more space on the hangar deck. That said,
I think it was just as bad decision by the devs, not to make it carrier capable,
as it was by the carrier commanders not to understand the value of such a plane.
They might have been of better practical use if they had more of it. That each
carrier had a designated "scout" squadron may have resulted in the minimal use of
this type. Just my opinion.
Fred
RE: F4F-7
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 12:02 pm
by crsutton
And it was not very fast nor could it fly very high. Not good attributes for an unarmed single engine plane.
RE: F4F-7
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 12:29 pm
by Panther Bait
Speaking of navigating, if the whole point of giving it the max fuel load was to increase range (and time aloft as well), wouldn't that drastically complicate finding the carrier again? Or constrain the carrier to be in a certain general area for the entire recon mission?
Mike
RE: F4F-7
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 3:48 pm
by Leandros
ORIGINAL: Panther Bait
Speaking of navigating, if the whole point of giving it the max fuel load was to increase range (and time aloft as
well), wouldn't that drastically complicate finding the carrier again? Or constrain the carrier to be in a
certain general area for the entire recon mission?
Mike
RDF and radar. But, that
was one of my points. As for speed and altitude, many factors there. With what
weight and altitude is the specified speed? At what stage of the mission is the max altitude specified?
What did the Japs do as to long-range carrier fleet recce?
Fred
RE: F4F-7
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 3:49 pm
by m10bob
ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer
ORIGINAL: wdolson
Is the plane carrier capable in the database?
Bill
Not in DBB-C
As indicated..these are two distinctly different planes. The range of the F4F-7 is nearly 4000 miles, as opposed to that F4F-3P model.
http://www.pwencycl.kgbudge.com/F/4/F4F_Wildcat.htm
RE: F4F-7
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 2:00 pm
by AW1Steve
Many thanks. I expected the Dev's had their reasons. [:(]
RE: F4F-7
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 2:21 pm
by BBfanboy
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Many thanks. I expected the Dev's had their reasons. [:(]
One of the reasons is probably the five squadron limit on CVs. If you have one of the F-7s on board there goes an entire squadron slot (not in plane numbers - that is a different limit).
RE: F4F-7
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 2:51 pm
by HansBolter
ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Many thanks. I expected the Dev's had their reasons. [:(]
One of the reasons is probably the five squadron limit on CVs. If you have one of the F-7s on board there goes an entire squadron slot (not in plane numbers - that is a different limit).
Can't recall if its stock or one of the many mods I have played, but in at least one scenario I can recall a handful of Essex carriers with a 4 plane recon squadron added as the fifth squadron.
In my current scenario 40 game I decided to split the F4F3P into 4 plane units and add them to three of my carriers as an experiment.
RE: F4F-7
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 5:06 pm
by geofflambert
ORIGINAL: Leandros
ORIGINAL: Alfred
It was overweight and not a successful carrier aircraft.
Quite a conscious decision by the devs to not make it "carrier capable".
Alfred
Looking at the information offered here - how could it be "overweight" with
armaments and armour removed and no wing-folding mechanism? Of course, the
reason for all this was to get more space, and weight, for fuel. I should think
the weight of cameras would add up to much less than armament and armour. Fuelled
up for a max endurance recce flight it would certainly be heavy. That was,
after all, the purpose of the modifications - to make it heavy - with fuel.
But, half-way through the mission, lightened, it would handle much better.
And I'm sure it would be less than popular with crews, not having neither armaments
nor armour. Not to talk about navigating alone over distances such as it was capable
of. It would take a special sort of pilot to like that. The ship's crew would also
dislike the non-folding wings, taking up more space on the hangar deck. That said,
I think it was just as bad decision by the devs, not to make it carrier capable,
as it was by the carrier commanders not to understand the value of such a plane.
They might have been of better practical use if they had more of it. That each
carrier had a designated "scout" squadron may have resulted in the minimal use of
this type. Just my opinion.
Fred
How could it? Extra fuel storage for one. A young whippersnapper like you should know that the kind of cameras we're referring to were a lot heavier than a 50 cal or even a number of them. Here's an interesting site:
http://www.airrecce.co.uk/cameras/raf_ww2_cameras.html
RE: F4F-7
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 5:07 pm
by geofflambert
Here's another such contraption.
RE: F4F-7
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 6:05 pm
by AW1Steve
ORIGINAL: Panther Bait
Speaking of navigating, if the whole point of giving it the max fuel load was to increase range (and time aloft as well), wouldn't that drastically complicate finding the carrier again? Or constrain the carrier to be in a certain general area for the entire recon mission?
Mike
I'd imagine that they'd link using a TACAN. It was in service at that time.
RE: F4F-7
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 6:07 pm
by AW1Steve
ORIGINAL: crsutton
And it was not very fast nor could it fly very high. Not good attributes for an unarmed single engine plane.
Yet a Slower flying, lower flying PBY, B-24 , O-47, or assorted bomber manage just fine. [:)]
RE: F4F-7
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 6:08 pm
by AW1Steve
ORIGINAL: Leandros
ORIGINAL: Panther Bait
Speaking of navigating, if the whole point of giving it the max fuel load was to increase range (and time aloft as
well), wouldn't that drastically complicate finding the carrier again? Or constrain the carrier to be in a
certain general area for the entire recon mission?
Mike
They have several.
RDF and radar. But, that
was one of my points. As for speed and altitude, many factors there. With what
weight and altitude is the specified speed? At what stage of the mission is the max altitude specified?
What did the Japs do as to long-range carrier fleet recce?
Fred
H'm my post apparently didn't take. The Japanese had several specialized long range RECON air craft designed or modified for CV usage.