Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Thu Jun 19, 2025 4:04 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Grumman XF4F-1 Wildcat
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:05 pm
Posts: 915
Location: ELP
This is one of those "just for fun" posts. As most of us know the Wildcat was originally envisioned to be a biplane, but due to the need for higher speeds the redundant wing went away and the Wildcat became famous as a monoplane. Well, "what would a biplane "Wildcat" look like?" you might ask. Here is my answer:

Fighting Six aboard the USS Enterprise:

Image

And all six carriers in service in the late 1930's:

Image

Gee, you think there might be one hidden in a barn somewhere? :lol:

_________________
Had God intended for man to fly behind inline engines, Pratt & Whitney would have made them.

CB

http://www.angelfire.com/dc/jinxx1/Desrt_Wings.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:31 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:40 pm
Posts: 1471
Don't we just normally call that an F3F? :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:05 pm
Posts: 915
Location: ELP
C VEICH wrote:
Don't we just normally call that an F3F? :)


The XF4F-1 would have been an outgrowth of the F3F-3, just as the F3F shared a common heritage with the F2F and FF-1. I have read that the F4F-1 was to have a Wright R-1670 vs. the F3F-s R-1820. The F4F-1 would have had a shorter wingspan than the F3F as well. In any case all drawings are merely speculation.

_________________
Had God intended for man to fly behind inline engines, Pratt & Whitney would have made them.

CB

http://www.angelfire.com/dc/jinxx1/Desrt_Wings.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:28 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 7:31 pm
Posts: 1120
Location: Caribou, Maine
A shorter wingspan and one less set of wings. What did that do to the wing loading?

_________________
Kevin McCartney


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 9:56 pm
Posts: 151
Location: Norman, Oklahoma
This looks like a perfect post for Martt Clupper at Airpigz.com... For those of you that don't know it's a site that is "Hog wild about anything that flies". Martt makes these types of "what if" posts all the time. You should go check it out.

~J~


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:05 pm
Posts: 915
Location: ELP
old iron wrote:
A shorter wingspan and one less set of wings. What did that do to the wing loading?


The XF4F-1 still would have had two wings, with a wingspan of 27' vs. the F3Fs of 32' (don't know about wing area.). The XF4F-2 had a wingspan of 34'. The XF4F-1 would probably have had a wing loading similar to the F3F, or maybe a little higher, but we will never know as it did not even reach the stage of a movkup.

_________________
Had God intended for man to fly behind inline engines, Pratt & Whitney would have made them.

CB

http://www.angelfire.com/dc/jinxx1/Desrt_Wings.html


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 250 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group