PDA

View Full Version : FM-2 WILDCAT!



VF-3Thunderboy
06-20-2004, 08:57 AM
Definetly a MUST HAVE. I had to make my own for CFS2, and that little extra power puts it over the top. The F4F-3/4 is great, but its a gravity plane, for when you go downhill!
Radials are very popular in CFS2. The FM-2 is a cross between a Wildcat/Hellcat.

Just do it!

Or at least as an add-on. CFS2 would have been so much better with an official FM-2! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VF-3Thunderboy
06-20-2004, 08:57 AM
Definetly a MUST HAVE. I had to make my own for CFS2, and that little extra power puts it over the top. The F4F-3/4 is great, but its a gravity plane, for when you go downhill!
Radials are very popular in CFS2. The FM-2 is a cross between a Wildcat/Hellcat.

Just do it!

Or at least as an add-on. CFS2 would have been so much better with an official FM-2! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tater-SW-
06-20-2004, 09:46 AM
The Fm-2 is not a cross between a F4F and a F6F.

The FM-2 is a Eastern (General Motors) built F4F. Under naval nomenclature, the first letter is the basic type (F=fighter, SB=Scout Bomber, TB=Torpedo bomber, etc). The number, if any, is the plane number of that type by that manufacturer (4 meaning the 4th fighter from Grumman). The last letter is the Manufacturer (F=Grumman, M=Eastern, D=Douglas, U=Vought, etc). The dash number is the sub-type, or mark of plane (-3 third revision, -4 fourth revision, etc).

F4F-3 is the third revision of the 4th Fighter produced by Grumman. The first revision of the fighter produced by eastern was the FM-1 (which was just a XF4F-8). There were almost as many FM-1s produced as F4F-4s. The most numerous Wildcat was the FM-2 with almost 4800 produced. The bigger tail that we think of with the FM-2 was only on the last several hundred planes, BTW.

tater

VF-17_Jolly
06-20-2004, 10:33 AM
Although it did have a more powerfull power plant oneless 50 cal per wing but more ammo per gun

http://www.skyknights.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/jolly.jpg

Fliger747
06-20-2004, 11:20 AM
The FM2 "Wilder Wildcat" was a great little plane, which served admirably on many of the CVE's in the latter part of the war. A little more power, a little less weight helped the climb rate the most, which did much to overcome the F4F's greatest enemy, gravity.

If one were to realistically own and fly a "warbird", it would be my choice!

VF-3Thunderboy
06-20-2004, 01:13 PM
Mine too Fliger,- The guy who got one through the loan program with the confederate airforce just cracked one up last year. He was "amazed"that it was just sitting around.Got it for the usual $10,000 down. I guess 1300 (max)HP doesnt impress too many of those Warbird guys! Unfortunatly, it was a fatal,low level stall, not minding the numbers. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

The extra power makes it climb more like a hellcat, although Hellcat guys were generally not too impressed with them.

ITs a MUST for PF!!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

SkyChimp
06-20-2004, 07:19 PM
The FM-2 had a great climb rate - 3,650 fpm (versus 2,265 fpm for F4F-3, and 1,950 fpm for F4F-4). The FM-2 had a better climb rate than both the F6F-3 and F6F-5. It could also outturn the F6F. Of course, it was slower. I would think it would not be as good in a dive, however.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellsig.jpg

VF-3Thunderboy
06-20-2004, 09:22 PM
Slow-shmo, combat is up and down, level flying is a no-no. The climb rate would make it VERY popular, and as you say, MORE manuverable then the Hellcat. Has rockets too. A must have for LEYTE GULF, which CFS2 did not cover!

CHANT:
FM-2, FM-2,FM-2!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

ImpStarDuece
06-21-2004, 02:46 AM
The Fm-2 Wildcat was the General Motors built production version of the XF4F-8 prototypes, that were tested by Grumman in December 1942. The prototypes flew with a 1300hp Wright Cyclone engine equipped with a turbocharger which showed absolute superiority at altitude over the two stage supercharger on the Twin Wasp powered F4F. It offered much better pefrformance above 20,000 ft.

General Motors initially built the FM-1, essentially the F4F-1 with only 4 MGs (12.7mm) and increased ammo capacity as Grumman was already at full capacity. Over 1,100 Fm-1s were made in 1943.

In late 1943 General Motors began to build FM-2s, supplying 4,777 in total, over 3000 of which were supplied in 1943! The Fleet Air Arm recieved 312 Fm-1s (initially as Martlet Vs and then renamed as Wildcat Vs) and 370 FM-2s as Wildcat VIs during 1943-44.

The Fm-2 feature only 4 .50cals but had a 1300hp engine, lightned structure, revised and enlarged fins and rudder and from about half way through the production run a Wright 1280-56W engine which featured water injection (hence the W designation) and allowed a short term increase in power during take off and for combat emergencies. The Water Injection allowed between 50-130 hp extra Hp when activated, depending on what sources you believe.

Over the FM-1 and F4F the FM-2 boasted a 5-10% increase in speed, a 18% increase in range, a 250% increase in initial bomb carrying capacity (2x 250lbs vs 2x 100lbs, changed later in the war though), 40% better climb at altitude, better turning circle, faster dive and improved roll initiation if not the roll itself.

A great little bird and one that i really look foward to suprising Zekes, georges and Oscars at low level with. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

Flying Bullet Magnet... Catching Lead Since 2002

"There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!"

RCJ99
06-21-2004, 08:35 PM
I'm afraid you guys are barking up the wrong tree about the FM-2. According to Airpower magazine Nov 2001 The FM-2 used the Wright R-1820 and single stage supercharger as used in the brewster F2A. Available parts and 200lbs less weight was the advantage for a plane used for anti sub patrol and ground attack at low level.

heywooood
06-21-2004, 09:06 PM
This is the Grumman I would most like to fly -

http://mucheswarbirds.com/F3F2.jpg

I just can't help it ... I would practice traps for days and days.

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/3tbm_avenger.jpg
Goin'fishin'

heywooood
06-21-2004, 09:11 PM
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g240000/g243864.jpg

But here is Ens.Darrell C. Bennett with his
'Lucky Witch' on USS Gambier Bay .

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/3tbm_avenger.jpg
Goin'fishin'

VF-3Thunderboy
06-21-2004, 10:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>. According to Airpower magazine Nov 2001 The FM-2 used the Wright R-1820 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, Me be thinkin' that Airpower Magazing is WRONG! The FM-2 had 1300 hp or so, it used the Cyclone engine of the B-17 type, I think. Not the DC-3 (C-47) type engine http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Look up FM-2 aces on goggle, theres a few good stories about em. It would be a very popular plane!

Seahawk89
06-22-2004, 12:21 AM
Got to see a FM-2 "shoot down" a Zero on Sunday. A few pics HERE (http://home.comcast.net/~trav8989/)

reisen52
06-22-2004, 03:16 PM
FM-1 Pratt & Whitney 14 cylinder 'Twin Wasp' R-1830-86 1,200hp

FM-2 Wright 9 cylinder "Cyclone" R-1820-56W 1,350hp

Reisen

SkyChimp
06-22-2004, 06:22 PM
According to Francillon's Grumman Aircraft: Since 1929, the FM-2 used the following engines:

Wright R-1820-56
Wright R-1820-56A
Wright R-1820-56W
Wright R-1820-56WA

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellsig.jpg

badaboom.1
06-22-2004, 06:58 PM
Seahawk,Nice pics,thanks for sharing http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://img9.photobucket.com/albums/v27/badaboom/Blacksheeprab.jpg

reisen52
06-22-2004, 07:09 PM
They all produced 1350hp IIRC.

Main difference between the engines is the "W" design cooing fin on the cylinder heads & improved metallurgy to correct heating problems.

Water injection was added as a standard item during the production run.

Reisen

SkyChimp
06-22-2004, 07:20 PM
Ratings for the R-1820-56 family were:

Combat Power: 1360hp @ 2600rpm @ seal level
Take-Off Power: 1300hp @ 2600rpm @ sea level
Military Power: 1300hp @ 2600 rpm @ 4000feet (low blower)
Military Power: 1000hp @ 2600rpm @ 17000feet (high blower)
Normal Power: 1200hp @ 2500rpm @ 5000feet (low blower)
Normal Power: 900hp @ 2500rpm @ 19000 (high blower)

"A" models of the R-1820 engine had a revised crankshaft allowing a take-off rpm of 2700 with 1350hp.

I assume these figures would apply to the -56W engines as well - dry. With water, I think the figures would increase.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellsig.jpg

reisen52
06-23-2004, 09:07 AM
I not to sure about that or if so that it would be significant.

A lot depends on what specific engine configuration was tested to get the numbers, how much water was metered in, what fuel was used, What RPM, what ignition timing, what MP, what the pull cycle was & how long the pull to determine peak HP was & so forth.

Water itself does not add any power it just cools the intake charge & slows the flame front to raise the detonation threshold.

This can let you increase the timing at WOT or possibly increase the boost some depending on how susceptible the engine is to detonation in its non-injected state.

If the RPM & MP could be raised for a measurable/usable time they could claim more power. If it could only help the engine power to quickly spike they would not claim more power.

Since some versions had heating problems the water might have just extended the duration of peak power not increased it.

Like anything there can be to much of it. Water metered too heavily will scour the plugs & wash down the cylinder oil film.

Oil dilution might not have been an issue as the Finns used to flip the fifth ring upside down to act as a scraper suggesting too much oil on the cylinder walls.

This was made official when Wright added a 6th ring (reversed) as they wanted the full 5 rings to secure compression.

Reisen

SkyChimp
06-23-2004, 08:03 PM
Without official ratings, it's difficult to say whether or not the 56W could developed more power than the 56. I base my statement on the fact that most US WWII radial aero-engines with water injection had a dry rating and a wet rating, with the wet rating being greater than the dry. I can't say that the 56/56W would have been different, but I can't see why they would be.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellsig.jpg

Texas LongHorn
06-24-2004, 02:33 AM
Hey SkyChimp, here's the info I have on the FM-2. And I quote" With the transfer of production of the Wildcat from the parent company to the Eastern Aircraft Division of General Motors, manufacture of the F4F-4 continuid in the slighty modified form as the FM-1. The-R1830-86 TWIN ROW Wasp engine was retained, but wing armament was reduced from six to four 0.5 (12.7mm to you guys in Europe.) The first FM-1 was flown on Augest 31's of 42 and GM built a total of 1060. Of interest is the fact that 312 went to Great Britain and served well. The highest production version was the FM-2, and it was intended to STANDARDIZE the Cyclone engine. The true dual-row FM-2 was no doubt a work of art. I've said it before, I can't wait to fly a large aluminum beer keg. All the best, LongHorn

http://img49.photobucket.com/albums/v149/msdavis/My_Sig_Image2.jpg

Texas LongHorn
06-24-2004, 02:46 AM
Oopps, forgot to quote the source, it must be awfully late &lt;ggg.&gt; The book is "The Complete Book of Fighters" by William Green and Gordon Swanborough. Good nite all. All the best, LongHorn

http://img49.photobucket.com/albums/v149/msdavis/My_Sig_Image2.jpg

reisen52
06-24-2004, 11:01 AM
&gt;&gt;&gt;The true dual-row FM-2 was no doubt a work of art.&lt;&lt;&lt;

I am not sure if you are saying the FM-2 had two sets of cylinder banks here but the FM-2 had only a single row 9 cylinder engine.

Reisen