Originally posted by JB73
ok innominate then why is the fm2 of f4f for that matter so much better of a fighter than the f6f?!?!
the f6f was commissioned to replace the ageing and incapable f4f and such...
BUT in the MA the f4f and fm2 are MUCH harder to kill (ie. many more rounds to critical areas, and they perform ACM's better than f6f)
that makes NO sense... the government replaced a plane (in RL with a better plane) but here the "lesser performing" plane (again in RL) is a better performer... i guess it dosen't matter as long as the hardcore early-war plane enthusiastics are happy that their "ultimate plane" is the best... thats what i see
many times have i swooped down on an f4f in a dora and been outrun... or chased down at 400+ by a f4f/fm2... or my cannon's have had NO effect (talk about titanium armor)
yes the f4f and fm2 need serious rework or rethoughtas far as their perk value goes
The FM-1/FM-2 remained in production primarily in order to have a fighter that wasn't too large for the growing fleet of escort carriers. Available deck length made operating the F6F, and especially the F4U, problematic.
There is no question that the Navy preferred the F6F for several key reasons. Range and payload are at the top of the list.
Indeed, once Grumman redesigned the static and dynamic pitot system, it was discovered that the F6F was, indeed as fast as the F4U-1 series. So, an extra 60 mph was available in comparison to the F4F/FM series. Unfortuantely, HTC's model seems to stick to the pre-redesign numbers which were too low.
Nonetheless, the test results of 1944's Joint Fighter Conference concluded that the FM-2 was the best fighter in the American inventory for combat below 10,000 ft. In terms of turn rate, the F4U-1D had a 212% larger turn radius than the FM-2, with the F6F-5 coming in at 137%.
With regard to climb rate, only the F4U-4 climbed better than the FM-2, getting to 20,000 ft just 35 seconds faster than the FM-2 and 45 seconds faster than the F4F-3 (of 1940 vintage).
Other factors contributed to the FM-2's good low level performance, such as have the best (meaning lowest) power loading of any U.S. fighter at sea level at 5.94 pounds/hp. The mighty P-51D came in at 6.83 pounds/hp at sea level. I have seen some estimations of FM-2 acceleration, and below 10,000 ft it would accelerate faster than the F4U-4 up until about 300 mph, where drag began to severely limit speed and acceleration.
Dive acceleration was very good as well. During operations in North Africa, some Luftwaffe pilots flying early Bf 109Gs were horrified to discover that FAA Martlet MkII and USN F4F-4s could dive with their Gustavs!
Ultimately, the single greatest drawbacks of the FM-2 are its lack of speed and weak engine performance above 15,000 feet.
As to ruggedness. Marine pilots loved their Corsairs, but lamented the loss of the Wildcat's superior resistance to battle damage. Can anyone imagine a P-51 surviving a 12+ G pullout? Wildcats could not only survive such punishment, but do so without serious damage. Add to this very basic and simple systems and you have just about the toughest fighter ever to take wing.
Additionally, you have to factor in that the Wildcat is a very small fighter, and consequently, a very small target.
Let me relate the experience of Ensign Joe McGraw of VC-10:
Having become separated from his wingman, McGraw found himself in the close company of a dozen A6M5 Zeros near Samar (in the PI). He engaged in a swirling dogfight, consistantly out-flying the Zero pilots who were clearly startled at the performance of this new Wildcat. Initially, McGraw received credit for 1 probable and two damaged. McGraw described the Zero that he claimed as a probably destroyed in great detail. Post war investigation of U.S. Navy claims indicate that this IJN Zero was apparently flown by a 13 kill ace, and he was reported to have crashed into the sea after engaging in a protracted dogfight with an American Wildcat.
In the mid 1970s, I was fortunate to get some seat time with VC-10 down in Guantanamo Bay. At the time they had just transitioned from the F-8 Crusader to the TA-4J Skyhawk. Even 30 years later, VC-10 was a highly respected composite squadron.
I am largely dismayed at the continuous banter to perk planes such as the P-51B, N1K2, La-7 and now the FM-2. These are all very capable aircraft, but their presence does not unbalance the arena, nor are they unbeatable, especially the bog-slow Wildcats! Please people, stop the pathetic whining and learn to how to deal with the different aircraft rather than make silly excuses or insist that your failures are anyone's or anything's fault but your own.
My regards,
Widewing
