All the Wildcat/Martlet questions you wanted to ask

[Graham Boak]

Apparently I failed to actually post this earlier.   As it isn't on the Avengers, it probably isn't a tactical marking.  I can see signs of overpainting on the fuselage spine and the fuselage below that, also on the wings of one of the Avengers.  I wonder whether that black was for D-Day stripes but painted on with normal paint rather than distemper, and the white has since been removed?

[detail is everything]

The aircraft in front of 'F' appears to have the entire wing underside painted out in the same dark colour. Note no roundel, which must have been painted over.

[EwenS]

34 minutes ago, detail is everything said:

The aircraft in front of 'F' appears to have the entire wing underside painted out in the same dark colour. Note no roundel, which must have been painted over.

Compare it with the Avenger alongside it which is at a different angle to the camera. Neither seems to carry underwing roundels. To me it is not a different colour but just a greater shadow effect from the different camera angle. It appears nowhere near as dark as that panel on the Wildcat.

[detail is everything]

On 11/18/2022 at 2:01 AM, mdesaxe said:

I am curious - the Martlet exists in a publicly-funded museum, so has anyone thought of asking Yeovilton what colours were used?

I was on a tour of the restoration and preservation work at Yeovilton yesterday and I asked David Morris, Curator of Aircraft at the Fleet Air Arm Museum, whether he had identified the colours used by Grumman to paint Grumman Martlet I AL246

 

 

He confirmed that he had spent much time investigating the matter and that he thinks he has the answer.  He is putting the finishing touches to his book on the AL246 restoration project (which will presumably be similar to his book on the Corsair KD431 restoration project)  and the answer will be in there!

Edited March 3, 2023 by detail is everything

[detail is everything]

2 hours ago, EwenS said:

Compare it with the Avenger alongside it which is at a different angle to the camera. Neither seems to carry underwing roundels. To me it is not a different colour but just a greater shadow effect from the different camera angle. It appears nowhere near as dark as that panel on the Wildcat.

Yeah, I see what you are saying... my bad

[BuNo02100]

On 1/7/2023 at 5:10 AM, ClaudioN said:

Trying one final time to revive the thread keeping to Wildcat/Martlet alone (please...!).

 

I agree with @MDriskill it would be a good idea to move the latest posts on the Grumman Avenger to a separate thread (and maybe, those on Sea Blue as well), if moderators and the OP agree.

 

This photo is taken from the asisbiz.com website:

 

NOTE: the images are used here for "thread therapeutic purposes" alone. If a copyright is involved, I will remove them at once, with apologies.

 

Captioned as "Grumman F4F-3P Wildcat VMO 251 Black 14 damaged on Guadalcanal 1943", I would suggest it is a F4F-4 instead, as it appears to have six guns.

The photo shows interesting details of the intercooler duct and the engine bulkhead.

For comparison, this other photo from the same web site shows very well the different panel layout at the rear of the engine bulhead, associated with the R-1830-76 engine:

 

 

Note that the engine panel with the unit emblem is secured at the top with six fasteners and is slightly shorter, whereas on the photo of '14' above there are seven panel fastener holes. I have never seen this feature reported in any profile of the F4F-3.

Of course, this aircraft (unlike the F4F-4 above) would also lack the small blister on the fuselage side. This difference is another seldom reported feature in profiles. The one notable exception I know of is the side view of Bu. No. 2531 of VF-42 in the book "The First Team" by Lundstrom.

 

From what I could find it seems that, after serving with the initial four Atlantic Fleet squadrons (VF-41, VF-42, VF-71 and VF-72), the original machines with the R-1830-76 engine were employed to assist in forming VF-8 and VF-9, then used either as advanced trainers or with Marine units (such as VMO-251) in the South Pacific. When VF-42 embarked on Yorktown for the Pacific in early 1942 mid-December 1941, most of its aircraft were still the R-1830-76 engined type.

 

Incidentally, the 16 F4F-3 on lease to RN Nos. 890 and 892 Squadrons were also all initial production machines with the R-1830-76 engine (reportedly ex-VF-9, according to Sturtivant).

The first photo is an F4F-4 from VMF-223 at Guadalcanal written off in August 1942.  The caption on azbiz is incorrect.  No F4F-3s were deployed to Guadalcanal.  The second pic is an F4F-3 of VMO-251 at Espiritu Santo in November or possibly December 1942.  

[gingerbob]

 

Hi folks,

 

I've been working through this and other Wildcat threads, trying to pull all the trains of thought together in such a way that I can find out where they ended up.  I've only just "turned the page" to page 6, so this is something of an interim reply so that I don't get hopelessly muddled.  One or two of the quoted posts here I am not able to comment on right now (got things to do!) so I'll edit this later- stay tuned.

 

But for a start... this may be one of those, "Well... YEAH (or 'duh')" moments, but I zoomed as far as I could rationally zoom and was pretty darn certain that the little white lettering on these says 'F4F-4'.  Note also the '2' and '4' on the two nearest fuselages (or rudders thereupon).  With the British one cuddled up next to them, I think that says a great deal about what the situation is.

 

On 9/30/2022 at 10:14 AM, ClaudioN said:

F4F fuselages in storage at Bethpage, NY. On the right what appears to be a Martlet II nose. Overall Neutrality Grey suggests aircraft built early in 1941.

 

 

On 9/28/2022 at 10:08 AM, captnwoxof said:

Request for help.

I am also interested in BuNo 7031, the airframe that was added to the F4F-3 contract to test the R-1830-90 and designated XF4F-6. Where did it fit into G-36B development? Examination of the few photos I have reveal that it too had the short canopy. Why? Other than these three airframes, all F4F-3s (even the first two, Buno 1844/1845) had the long canopy. Again, what wing was fitted?

Answers to these questions may go a long way to understanding how the G-36A and G-36B were developed, and why they differed from F4F configurations.

Thanks in advance for any help. 

On 10/24/2022 at 8:25 PM, captnwoxof said:

Since my last post, I have been going back through references, trying to determine the rhyme and reason for the altered design of the engine mounting bulkhead (that I dorked and called a firewall, i really do know better). So far the search has revealed as many questions as answers. You zeroed in on a discrepency I havent been able to resolve yet. While the combination of bulkhead/panel construction shows a consistent pattern for US Navy F4F production. the G-36Bs fell outside of this and reveal anomolies, Some examples in the early AM serial range did not have the blister. What bulkhead was fitted? I spent the weekend looking for answers, re-examining photos and comparing the time line of F4F-3/3A and G-36B production.. I am reluctant to make guesses where I haven't found certainties, the waters are muddy,but here is what I have so far. 

 

The earliest example of the revised engine mounting/side panel construction that I have found is the XF4F-6. Both the USN and the British displayed Interest in a single-stage R-1830 powered version I don't know which came first,. The British specified this engine for the 100 G-36B s in July 1940, at about the same time (date unspecified) that the USN  ordered a single additional airframe fitted with the military version of the same engine. Designated the XF4F-6, it was completed before G-36B production began so it would appear to have been the prototype for the single stage engine installation. It first flew in October 1940, and was delivered in November. Photos are few, the best resolution I have found is in Doyle's Legends of Warfare, pg 47. It had the "late" style bulkhead and "extended " side panels. However, the panels do not have the blisters. There were no intercoolers  so they weren't necessary. The entire setup suggests to me that the firewall and panels were altered as a reflection of the change of engine, perhaps in order to take the opportunity to simplify structural components that no longer were required to accomodate the intercoolers. This is strictly hypothetical, the change may have been for an entirely  different reason.

 

Claudio has speculated that dimensional differences might have been the cause for the redesign. I believe that the dimensional differences quoted were due to differences in the  accessory sections of the engines, and that the crankcase was mounted to the bearers in the same position for all  models. However, that doen't rule out changing the bulkhead in order to give more space for the accessories, and this may have been the case.

 

The first 10 G-36B fuselages (AM954-963) were constructed in December 1940. Construction of their folding wings was delayed, so the fuselages were placed in storage. They were eventually fitted with fixed wings and delivered in March, but a lot of production changes occurred in the interim. Again, photos are rare, but they appear to exactly mirror the XF4F-6, with the "late" firewall and extended panels without blisters. 

 

Further construction of G-36B fuselages was suspended for six months until the folding wing was ready for production. 

 

From this point, more questions than answers arise.

The USN decided to install the single-stage engine in 95 F4F-3 airframes, redesignating them F4F-3A.  Construction began in February 1941. All of them (BuNo 3875-3969) were built with the revised bulkhead /side panel arrangement of the XF4F-6, except the side panel has the blister. Why? It isn't necessary. it has been suggested that it was for commonality with F4F-3 production, and this seems likely, but it raises another question:  When did the two-stage engined airplanes adopt the new style of bulkhead and forward panels,, and why? Doing so required the introduction of the blisters, they were neccessary to clear the intercooler flange..Commanality of construction? Was there something that made the revised bulkhead preferable (or required) for all R-1830 powered versions? 

 

The last F4F-3 of the first order (BuNo 2538) left the factory on February 21, 1941. It was -76 powered, and had the early "rounded" bulkhead/plain panel arrangement.

The first 19 F4F-3s of the second order (BuNo 3856-74) are a mysterious lot. Their BuNos preceded those of the -3As, and it has been suggested that they were built concurrently, but delivery was delayed due to lack of (or trouble with) their  -76 engines. Their cowling configuration was altered, but what the bulkhead/side panel arrangement was used in their construction? Original or revised?

After the last -3A was delivered, -3 construction resumed in June with BuNo 3970. From this point, all subsequent P&W powered F4F/FM-1 production had the -86 engine. All had the revised bulkhead, with the blistered side panels.

 

What about the 90 remaining G-36Bs? Construction recommenced in June. All 90 had the revised bulkhead. Some of the first airframes (AM964 and AM 966 are known examples) had side panels without blisters. It has been speculated that these were panels fabricated back in December before a decision was made to standardize on producing all panels with blisters, and they were used because they were available. This explanation is reasonable and logical (and so it should be regarded with great suspicion 🤨!

 

OK, there's stuff in that one and the one below I'll address later.  Meanwhile, I've bolded the part I'm speaking to now, concerning the XF4F-6 (I keep wanting to type XF6F...!), which follows on to the plea in the prior quoted post.

 

There were some comments that the Martlet I (G-36A) block were assigned c/n's 646-736, though only up to 726 were actually built (unless I've mixed something up).

The XF4F-6 is c/n 737

I think, though I'm not sure I've confirmed it, that the infamous 19 -3s prior to (or not?) the -3A, BuNos 3856-3874, are c/n 738-756, and then the -3A batch runs on as BuNo 3875/ c/n 757 etc.

 

The late BuNo of the -6 (7031) makes me wonder if this was a "last minute" individual tacked on to the end of the G-36A run- and/or tacked on to the front of another USN production order that was already intending to include some "make do and mend" -3As, and this was a convenient way to get a "pre-production" example.

 

I'm sorry, this is so far only a half-formed thought, but I've got to go deliver cheese!

 

See y'all later,

bob

 

On 10/24/2022 at 7:54 AM, detail is everything said:

If you ignore the differing dimensions issue, the fact that some very early AM#### serial Martlet IIs didn't have the blistered panel, despite being completed with folding wings after the F4F-3As, can be explained away by the fact that the very earliest fuselages were probably built from components which originate from December 1940, before the F4F-3As were built between March and May 1941.  This is because construction of the Martlet II was stopped after the first 10 machines were built and completed as fixed wing Martlet III(A)s. 

 

Already delivered components would have been stored, ready for when production of the remaining 90 machines would have resumed between August and December 1941, once the folding wings were ready to be fitted.  Lots of assumptions but I'm guessing the stored components were for the earlier firewall arrangement and then, as the Martlet II build continued, the delivered components would have incorporated the by now new firewall arrangement. However the photo above doesn't show a mix of early or revised firewall arrangements, so my hypothesis is flawed unless someone can explain away the above photo. 

 

 

OK, I've made it through the ten pages to the (current) end.  There are some interesting comments in this "Report by Philip Young" (found in the Morgenthau Diaries, (md0422 is the online volume, from page 314 "actual" (not pdf file) page number).  Report is dated 19 Oct 40, on visits to Pratt & Whitney, Grumman, Brewster, and Sperry:

 

Quote

 

The impression the observer gets is that the efficiency of this plant is based on a group of highly skilled craftsmen working by hand with a minimum of machine tools. Nevertheless it is turning out fighters at a maximum of 8 per week. At the present time it is two weeks ahead on the British order for G-36A's and only has seven left to go (the original French contract). On the British order for 120 G-36B's, delivery will not be up to the schedule as the G-36B has a folding wing which is still in the engineering stage and not yet in production.  Mr Grumman stated, however, that 10 fuselages per month for this model would be turned out beginning in November and that it was hoped the wings would come into production by January.

 

A conference was held... with representatives of Grumman, the Navy, Army, Treasury, and the British Purchasing Commission. At that time an attempt was made to ascertain what the differences were between the British type fighter and the Navy fighter for the purpose of securing as much standardization as possible. All of these differences were of a relatively minor nature and were concerned with the following:

1. Windshields (type of glass to be used so as to afford a maximum safety and protection against bullets; Navy is studying)
2. Gun sights (the British use the US Army sight whereas the Navy uses a larger type sight which constitutes a different instrument arrangement; it is possible that the British might take the Navy sight in the future) [Me: could this have anything to do with the 2 windscreen lengths?]
3. Safety belts (the British have special shoulder type safety belt; Navy may adopt British type)
4. Carburetor mixture control (question of standardizing movement of control)
5. Starter (British use electric starter, Navy used cartridge starter; British would like to use Navy type if available)
6. Generators (Army uses 24 volt system and Navy uses 12 volt system; Navy gradually changing to 24 volt type)
7. Sperry artificial horizon (Navy used a cage, British do not due to accidents which have occurred; Navy willing to change on basis of British experience)
8. Altimeters (Navy has calibration in inches, British has calibration in millibars)
9. Corrosion finish (Army and British use a chrome pickle finish, Navy does not; Navy may accept chrome pickle after study)
10. Catapult attachments (no chance for standardization due to different type of catapults on British and US ships).

 

At the present time Grumman is operating one shift of 1400 people six days per week, and a second shift of 50 people. The second shift is merely to clean up incidental bottlenecks. Increase in the rate of production has not been possible due to lack of engines...

 

At the present time the management of Grumman is worried because its Navy contract has not yet been signed, and it has already made commitments for materials.  [I presume that this refers to Contract 75736, "dated" 5 Aug, which includes a follow-on order for -3s, the -3As, etc)

 

 

Edited December 23, 2023 by gingerbob