Grumman F3F vs monoplane fighters

[JohnB]

We all know that the Grumman F3F of the mid '30s didn't see combat use in the early days of the Pacific War. However, it was in frontline use until the summer of 1941.

I was reading a new book I received for Christmas... " Grumman F2F/F3F and Civilian variants, by Richard S Dann, published by Ginter.

When the larger engines F3F-2 was evaluated by the Navy, the test board was impressed with its maneuverability, stating:

"The airplane was found to be highly maneuverable surpassing in this regard any other airplane that has been submitted for trials. In maneuvering combat with to experimental monoplane fighters the results were such as to indicate that the only chance of success with a monoplane against the F3F -2 would be due get ineffective shot in the 1st approach and then leave the vicinity. Otherwise, the F3F-2 has an almost insurmountable Advantage due to it's higher maneuverability.The F3F-2 was found to be the most satisfactory single place fighter developed for the Navy to date taking into account all factors of maneuverability, performance, maintenance and reliability.

Okay, here is a question for serious Wildcat (or early war fighter) experts...
Giving that glowing recommendation...
-How did the F3F compare to the Wildcat in terms of maneuverability?

-If history had played out a little differently..If the war had started earlier or if the Wildcat was delayed...How would The F3F have fared in combat against the Japanese fighters...namely the "Zero" encountered early in the Pacific war?

Monoplanes will generally have a speed advantage over biplanes, but in the real world of combat flying, how important is pure sped vs. Maneuverability (...aside from being able to break off combat at will?).

I have read that early designs for the F4F were biplanes, but Grumman changes the design to a monoplane while retaining the basic fuselage...so some felt, until a fairly late date, that biplane fighters had a place in Naval aviation.

Last edited by JohnB on Wed Dec 29, 2021 1:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

[Kyleb]

Monoplanes will generally have a speed advantage over biplanes, but in the real world of combat flying, how important is pure sped vs. Maneuverability (...aside from being able to break off combat at will?).

Opinion: Speed is the most important single characteristic of a good fighter. It allows you to chase down fleeing opponents and to break off combat when you desire. Also, it gives you a better chance to close with the enemy before he sees you. IMO, the best fighter pilots are assassins at heart, making it preferable to attack an unsuspecting adversary than to fight an adversary who has identified you.

[BigGrey]

One of my favorite stories is from when the Chino gang picked up the F3F's in Texas and flew them to Chino.
As I remember the story being told, the formation of I think 3 F3F's passed a Baron in flight and the pilot called ATC and wanted to know what kind of bi-plane could pass him.

[Saville]

In my opinion well flow F4F's can take out F3F's so long as they boom and zoom and do not get involved in a turning fight.

Same as F4F's dealing with the Zero's.

Even if the Zero's were less maneuverable than the F3F's they were still superior. Japanese monoplanes took out Chinese biplanes with regularity.

The faster plane can keep after the F3F until it's shot down. The F3F has no choice but to stay defensive.

Now there are exceptions of course. I listened to one Korean Corsair pilot tell how he was on a bombing mission and he got attacked by a Mig 15. A Mig made multiple passes at him but his maneuverability in the Corsair saved him though his Corsair was handling strangely. Then the Mig made a mistake...overshot and the Corsair got him.

On the way back he was informed that he still had the bomb hanging from the Corsair.

Then there's the story in Saburo Sakai's book where he was cornered by more than a dozen Hellcats and got away.

But in both cases the more maneuverable plane was pure defensive unless the attacker made a mistake or ran out of gas.

Whereas I've read countless examples of P-38s, Thunderbolts and Mustangs getting away from Zero's with speed. In the P-38's case speed in a shallow climb - the Zero could not follow. You can see several pilots writing about that in "12 to One: V Fighter Command Aces of the Pacific"

[Mark Sampson]

To this point- the British used the Gloster Gladiator biplane in combat early in WWII, and replaced them with Hurricanes and Spitfires as soon as they could.

[JohnB]

To this point- the British used the Gloster Gladiator biplane in combat early in WWII, and replaced them with Hurricanes and Spitfires as soon as they could.

I understand the Gladiator was very much an old school design...so any comparisons might not be valid.

[Sopwith]

To this point- the British used the Gloster Gladiator biplane in combat early in WWII, and replaced them with Hurricanes and Spitfires as soon as they could.

I understand the Gladiator was very much an old school design...so any comparisons might not be valid.

I don’t think that the Gladiator would have been too old school , mid 30’s again and a pretty agile performer. I would have thought on a par with the CR42 and possibly the F3F, so good for a manoeuvring only dog fight, but out classed by the swifter monoplanes. Again horses for courses so not really a fair comparison , pluses and minuses for both the biplane and monoplane.

[Rick65]

In the early war the Soviets pursued a strategy of fast monoplane (I-16) and agile biplane (I-15 and derivatives).
The I-15 was developed into the I-153 with retractable undercarriage and lots of these were made and they saw combat initially against the Japanese and later the Germans.
The I-153 was faster than the F3F and the I-153 combat record is probably the best indication of how the F3F would have struggled against monoplanes much faster then the Ki-27 encountered over Mongolia.

[Chris Brame]

I wonder how much damage an F3F could have absorbed in combat and survive, as opposed to an F4F?

[Kyleb]

I wonder how much damage an F3F could have absorbed in combat and survive, as opposed to an F4F?

Probably quite a bit less, given how quickly the state of the art was changing regarding armor and self sealing fuel tanks.

[JohnB]

I wonder how much damage an F3F could have absorbed in combat and survive, as opposed to an F4F?

Their fuselage structure looks pretty comparable.
Wings are a different matter. And the F3F did not have wing tanks, which could reduce vulnerability in combat.

At any rate, I was interested to see how highly the Navy thought of the tubby Grumman.

[JohnB]

In the early war the Soviets pursued a strategy of fast monoplane (I-16) and agile biplane (I-15 and derivatives).
The I-15 was developed into the I-153 with retractable undercarriage and lots of these were made and they saw combat initially against the Japanese and later the Germans.
The I-153 was faster than the F3F and the I-153 combat record is probably the best indication of how the F3F would have struggled against monoplanes much faster then the Ki-27 encountered over Mongolia.

But in that state of the war, I would guess the Japanese pilots were probably superior to the Russians.
While in our hypothetical F3F/IJN combat, they pilots would have been more comparable.

[old iron]

But in that state of the war, I would guess the Japanese pilots were probably superior to the Russians.
While in our hypothetical F3F/IJN combat, they pilots would have been more comparable.

I would argue that, yes, the Japanese pilots were initially superior to the Russians, but were also initially superior to our own, especially those pilots that dropped bombs. The early record, at Coral Sea and the Indian Ocean as examples, was that the Japanese pilots pretty much killed any ships they flew over, while our pilots did not take their dives as seriously and had a lot lower rates of hits, and were pretty much unable to sink smaller ships such as destroyers that had a full head of steam - the early Japanese were pretty much always able to sink a destroyer that they set minds to sink, again the previously mentioned battles serve as examples

I do not think we ever came close to achieving the rate of hits that the Japanese had early in the war, take as an example the Battle of the Marianas where all of our prodigious aircraft sank two tankers and a minor carrier. Of course, we did better later in the war against freighters, but those were not shooting back.

What we excelled at was the production of aircraft and pilots, which combined with the Japanese loss and inability to replace their their highly trained elite, turned the war around very quickly.

[eze240]

One thing that I have yet to see commented on is the question of armament....
Many of the '30's designs were woefully under armed for combat in even early WW2...
If I recall right the F3F's armament was one .50 cal and one .30 cal....that's pretty light, considering the F4F, I believe, was four .50's....that's around 3X the firepower....

[shrike]

But in that state of the war, I would guess the Japanese pilots were probably superior to the Russians.
While in our hypothetical F3F/IJN combat, they pilots would have been more comparable.

I would argue that, yes, the Japanese pilots were initially superior to the Russians, but were also initially superior to our own, ....

The Russians faced the IJA, the Americans et allii the IJN. Given the antagonism between the two Japanese forces, you may as well compare different nations.
That said, the IJA got a dose of pilot attrition in the fevered pace of operations at Khalkin Gol/Nahomon. Following that, however they faced more limited operations, and could keep up with pilot needs. The IJN either didn't get the memo, or ignored it as an Army problem, and seemed not to even attempt any effort to replace, retrain or supplement their carrier pilot base from the start of the war.
Pilot training cannot be overemphasized. The Poles had extremely well trained pilots in obsolete aircraft *, that performed most excellently when given modern equipment.
Being able to train pilots in security was a huge advantage to the Americans and Canadians, and to an extent the RAF (there being a former RAF base here in Arizona). The US and Canada had the added luxury of being able to rotate pilots home both for rest and to pass on the practical lessons learned to the new crop.
The Germans after 1941, never had a rear area 'rear' enough for safe training (combined with fuel shortages and the destruction of training aircraft wasted at Stalingrad)
The Russians seemed to treat pilots as fungible goods, part of massive production of aircraft, where quantity was more important than quality. That helped lead to the massively one sided K:D ratios on the eastern front.

*Poland alternated approximately five year periods of training vs rearmament. The rearmament/modernization phase was just starting when the war erupted.