Strange climb rates?

[GaryChildress]

Browsing through the database--yet again--I've noticed for the first time that the value for climb rate of the F4F-3 is greater than that of the F4F-4 and the value for climb rate of the P-40B is greater than all later P-40s! In fact the value for climb rate for the P-40B is greater than the A6M2!!!! Is that accurate? I thought the A6M2 was supposed to have a superior climb rate to just about any allied plane of the early war? [&:]

[ChezDaJez]

The sustained climb rate for the Zero should be much higher than the P-40B. IIRC, the P-40B sustained climb rate was around 2500 fpm and the Zero's was around 2900 fpm. Both had zoom climbs in excess of 4000 fpm but the P-40B ran out of airspeed very quickly due to its much greater weight.

It is correct relatively speaking as the P-40B was much lighter than the P-40E. The P-40E had selfsealing tanks, armor plate and windshield, 2 extra guns and bomb racks which the P-40B did not get at the factory.

Same for the F4F-3 vs the F4F-4. Pilots much preferred the F4F-3. It was faster, climbed faster, had better range and was more maneuverable even though it had fewer guns, no armor or self-sealing tanks until they were retrofitted. Thatch was very unhappy with it, especially once he learned that the changes had been made at the request of the Brits for their Martletts and incorporated by Grumman without consultation.

Chez

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Browsing through the database--yet again--I've noticed for the first time that the value for climb rate of the F4F-3 is greater than that of the F4F-4 and the value for climb rate of the P-40B is greater than all later P-40s! In fact the value for climb rate for the P-40B is greater than the A6M2!!!! Is that accurate? I thought the A6M2 was supposed to have a superior climb rate to just about any allied plane of the early war? [&:]

As to the F4F-3/4 differences: the -4 added a LOT of weight with additional guns, armor, and self-sealing fuel tanks. Per Lundstrom, the various CAGs tried to stash extra -3 on board after the conversion. In adddition to the reduced performance, the ammo supply was reduced as weight compensation; the pilots' counter argument was that the additional guns were for the peple who couldn't shoot in the first place and they needed more ammo, not less.

[Daniel Oskar]

I'm at work, so at the moment I don't have access to any references, but there are two ways in which an aircraft's sustained climb performance are generally measured; best rate of climb and best angle of climb. There is a given speed you fly for each to get the desire performance. Most aircraft climb at a shallower angle at best rate, with a higher increase in altitude per minute. At best angle you sacrifice rate for steepness of climb. Some references list both, some list climb rate and leave you hanging. Maybe this issue is comparing apples and oranges.