Author Topic: FM-2 vs F4F-4 (Read 1698 times)

Gloves · « **on:** October 18, 2002, 08:47:34 AM »

Okay, I know there are some obvious differences with these two (such as WEP for FM-2 and 4 guns vs 6 guns of the F4F), but are there any real differences in performance of these 2 birds? Do they both turn fight well? Which one would have the advantage in a turn fight?

Gloves

gatso · « **Reply #1 on:** October 18, 2002, 09:04:12 AM »

Could I just poke my head in here to ask if anyone has any F4F-4b (Martlet IV) pics, preferably similar (but larger) to the one below.

Thanks in advance

BTW, If you read russian (I don't) here's a site I found, It runs to 10 pages and has some really interesting pics.Here

Gatso

Innominate · « **Reply #2 on:** October 18, 2002, 10:09:31 AM »

The FM2 is an F4F-8 built by general motors, around 1943. At the time the larger carriers were beginning to carry bigger planes like the f6f and f4u, so the fm2 was intended for use on the smaller escort carriers. It is lighter than the f4f-4, and has a better engine. As you said, it has four guns instead of six.

I'm pretty sure the fm2 willl beat the f4f-4 in just about every way short of firepower.

J_A_B · « **Reply #3 on:** October 18, 2002, 12:58:02 PM »

The biggest differece is climbrate. The F4F climbs at about 2500-2600 FPM at low altitudes with no WEP to improve it. That is totally inadequate for a MA fighter. Using WEP the FM2 can climb at 3400-3500 FPM at low altitude, a massive improvement and actually useful for the MA. The FM2 is also marginally faster although both aircraft are quite slow. Top speed at altitude is about the same, but the FM2 is around 15 MPH faster on the deck than the F4F-4. At low altitudes, the FM2 performs very much like the Spitfire 5 and people tend to under-estimate it.

As an FYI, the F4F-4 actually carries MORE overall ammo if you select the 4-gun option.

Above 18,000 feet there's little difference between the two. The FM2 makes a good low-altitude fighter and is a worthy alternative to the more popular Spitfire 5.

J_A_B

whgates3 · « **Reply #4 on:** October 19, 2002, 12:01:00 AM »

google will find tons of pix for you, i'm sure

also the fleet air arm archive ( http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net ) is always a good source for that type of thing, and their pages usually have lots of good outside links

Soulyss · « **Reply #5 on:** October 19, 2002, 01:07:27 AM »

After skimming through the Wildcat section of America's Hundred Thousand, it seems that down low the FM-2 will out perform the F4F-4 in just about every performance catagory. At higher alts, performance is pretty much even.

The F4F-4 should have more range since it has more internal fuel (in gallons) than the FM-2.

In regards to turn performance I'm not sure what would have the edge... offhand I'd take a guess at the FM-2 (and this is from memory) I think it's lighter than the F4F-4. Combined with a more powerful engine I would give the edge to the FM-2

Urchin · « **Reply #6 on:** October 19, 2002, 11:19:38 AM »

FM2 is nowhere near as good as a Spit V. Spit V is faster, out turns it, has probably 4 times the firepower, and climbs better.

J_A_B · « **Reply #7 on:** October 19, 2002, 02:21:16 PM »

I said it's a good alternative

Compared to the Spit 5, the FM2 is tougher, longer firing duration, better diving ability, and the turning ability is close enough that pilot skill is going to make the difference. In terms of speed, they're about even on the deck, within 5 MPH of each other. As altitude increases the Spit 5 gains the advantage, but it's rare to see either of these planes at high altitude. In a furball the FM2 can sometimes survive LONGER than a Spit 5 because it's not as vulnerable to snapshots.

Compared to all other arena aircraft, the FM2 matches up about the same as the Spit 5....slow but it'll out-turn the Spit 9's and N1K2's.

J_A_B

Angus · « **Reply #8 on:** October 21, 2002, 02:33:02 PM »

The FM-2 outperforms the F4F in every category except firepower.
Up high however, their differences will become less and less.
The Spitfire V will beat the FM-2 in almost every category, - however the margin is not wide enough to allow the Spitfire pilot any errors. The FM-2 has better dive and initial dive acceleration, but that is about it. It will eventually compress before the SpitV.
The fire duration is quite some, but the punch is inadequate.
I wonder if it will ut-turn a Spitfire Mk IX, but if so, only by a margin, and then again, the Spitfire will outperform it in any other category.
Nice Plane, the FM-2....I like it