FM-2's ...

[bdk]

The basic difference is that the FM-2 had the 9-cylinder Wright R-1820 engine while the F4F had the Pratt & Whitney 14-cylinder R-1830.

[CraigQ]

Thanks Steven!

I've heard rumors about the entire aircraft being lightening (simplified) which meant that the aircraft DID perform quite a bit better when coupled with a more powerful engine. Anyone have any insight on this?

Did they fix the cranking of the landing gear on the FMs? Or did that remain throughout all F4F/FM variants? I want to say that I recall someone telling me that the FMs had electric motors for the landing gear and the flaps. I could be completely wrong...

Can someone please set me straight...

Not sure it was any lighter, if so it was from the engine going from 14 cylinders to 9. The oil cooler moved in from the stub wing to the accessory section area.
The landing gear retract remained hand cranked, no electric motors. The flaps remained vacuum canister operated.

Two questions I have about Wildcats:

1. Why didn't the later versions incorporate a retractable tail wheel? Was this the only American tail-dragger fighter in WWII with non-retractable tail wheel?

2. Why do some have prop spinners or domes? Does this relate to what engine variant was used, or a specific component of the powerplant?

1. The Wildcat did not have hydraulics ( except the brakes). No provision for retract in the tail and with the F6F in production I doubt re-engineering the Wildcat tail wheel to retract was even a thought.

2. The spinner was removable and it probably wasn't worth the hassle of removing and reinstalling. The motor is a sealed unit anyway.

[george]

CraigQ - I had wondered why when Eastern improved the Wildcat with the FM-2 version, they hadn't approached the tail wheel not retracting. Thanks for the explanation.

Looks like during the war, the Grummans did not have spinners, yet most of the Easterns did. I've noticed that of the Easterns flying today, some have a spinner and some don't. Makes sense, since they aren't needed.

[The Inspector]

The FM-2 was about 450 lbs lighter, had more horsepower, climbed faster and actually had the best USN kill/loss ratio of any navy fighter in WW2 (32.4 to 1). It was also about 30 MPH faster than the F4F, and never served aboard big fleet carriers, just Jeeps (CVE's).
Check out 'if you owned an FM-2' thread in Nathans usaircraft.com site for last nights postings including navy performance comparisons charts-
An article about the flying Chevy in February 2014's Flight Journal that I used to quote specs from changed my opinion of the FM-2.

[CraigQ]

The FM-2 was about 450 lbs lighter, had more horsepower, climbed faster and actually had the best USN kill/loss ratio of any navy fighter in WW2 (32.4 to 1). It was also about 30 MPH faster than the F4F, and never served aboard big fleet carriers, just Jeeps (CVE's).
Check out 'if you owned an FM-2' thread in Nathans usaircraft.com site for last nights postings including navy performance comparisons charts-
An article about the flying Chevy in February 2014's Flight Journal that I used to quote specs from changed my opinion of the FM-2.

When restoring the Fighter factory FM-2 I really came to appreciate the little fighter, amazingly simple and easy to work on.

As far as Nathans site, I joined up once, last year I think. Didn't log back on for a little while and when I tried I got a message saying I was banned for some reason, can't remember what now. Sent a couple of emails to the admin contact but never got a reply. Oh well.

[The Inspector]

The FM-2 was about 450 lbs lighter, had more horsepower, climbed faster and actually had the best USN kill/loss ratio of any navy fighter in WW2 (32.4 to 1). It was also about 30 MPH faster than the F4F, and never served aboard big fleet carriers, just Jeeps (CVE's).
Check out 'if you owned an FM-2' thread in Nathans usaircraft.com site for last nights postings including navy performance comparisons charts-
An article about the flying Chevy in February 2014's Flight Journal that I used to quote specs from changed my opinion of the FM-2.

When restoring the Fighter factory FM-2 I really came to appreciate the little fighter, amazingly simple and easy to work on.

As far as Nathans site, I joined up once, last year I think. Didn't log back on for a little while and when I tried I got a message saying I was banned for some reason, can't remember what now. Sent a couple of emails to the admin contact but never got a reply. Oh well.

He had to put the site through some serious alterations including a server swapout, around mid year, and it took me a couple of E mails to Nathan to get my registration reinstated and working.

[Scott Rose]

Images restored

[JohnB]

If FM-2s did I have the highest kill/loss ratio but weren't used on fleet carriers, is it possible that success came from its deployment, rather than superiority of the airframe?

Operating from CVEs, wouldn't it have faced a different enemy under different circumstances as opposed to fighters...of whatever type...operating from the larger fleet carriers. In other words, they may have had a greater likelihood of getting "easier" kills.

Examples might include aircraft from Atlantic operating CVEs, encountering Fw-200s during convoy escort cruises, or CVEs in the Pacific being utilized to intercept Japanese transports and scout aircraft away from the larger battles where CVs or land based fighters would have faced the Japanese "A team".

I'm not criticizing the Wildcat, but the statement looks like it may be a product of statistics rather than the Wildcat's superiority over the Hellcat and Corsair.

[Scott Rose]

I'm not criticizing the Wildcat, but the statement looks like it may be a product of statistics rather than the Wildcat's superiority over the Hellcat and Corsair.

This path is the road to madness!!
It's nearly impossible to compare airframes vs kill ratios vs timeframe.

Would the Hellcat or Corsair been as successfull against the pre-Midway Japanese pilots? It's hard to speculate or quantify.