The F6F was a boring plane, efficient enough but without any character. Flying it was like driving the family car on a Sunday afternoon. Even Joe, who loved flying so much that he even liked Links, was unimpressed. We circled the field for an hour, as we were instructed to do. Nothing had happened; it was like being alone with a girl you don’t like. But the F4F Wildcat was marvelous—very small (so small that it seemed you could reach out from the cockpit and touch both wing-tips), simple, maneuverable, and delicately responsive to the controls. After the TBM, which needed hydraulic boosters to be flown at all, and the humdrum F6F, the Wildcat was like a toy designed especially to please pilots. It did acrobatics as though it wanted to, and had been hoping you'd try one; and when you did, it flew you through the most intricate maneuver in a cooperative, friendly way.
>>65485278Thank you for the book recommendation, I hadn't heard of this one before. I'll trade you one. Nanette by Edwards Park is one of my favorite books. He flew P-39s in the Pacific. Nanette revolves primarily around one specific aircraft that he flew in the war. He also wrote Angels Twenty, which is a wider view on his experiences in the war. I love his writing style. "The cannon was originally a 37-millimeter antitank gun which fired rather slowly - whump-whump-whump, like that - and since you were sitting on it in the little cockpit, your legs straddling it, the firing of it vibrated your prostate so that the whole essence of war became mildly sexual. I do not know if this was intentional. Later cannon were 20 millimeter and fired much faster - babababababa, like that - and titillated you in a subtly different way. Some men enjoyed it more. I was a 37-millimeter man myself."
>>65485278Is that an actual excerpt (from the book)?
>>65486194>and since you were sitting on it in the little cockpit, your legs straddling it, the firing of it vibrated your prostate so that the whole essence of war became mildly sexualLewd
>>65485278Interesting, I haven’t heard any pilot accounts saying that the wildcat was more fun to fly than the hellcat before. But seeing as Hynes didn’t get posted to a combat outfit until 1944, I’m guessing he would have been flying the FM2 variant which was a whole lot better performance-wise than the vanilla F4Fs of 1941-42
>>65487239>Hynes didn’t get posted to a combat outfit until 1944Thanks for the explanation of the context of OP book excerpt.With respect to Hynes as a greatest generation World War II combat vet his characterization / comparison there seems confected for narrative value.Yes the FM-2 was a several hundred pounds lightened and upgraded power 4×.50-only armedF4F that did have better low altitude performance than earlier Wildcat variants. The F6F was almost double the gross weight—its empty weight was 1,000 lb heavier than the other's max gross—of FM-2 with a much larger two-row radial engine, six .50s armament and had far greater, higher performance, range and payload capacity than any Wildcat at all altitudes. It's not a surprise that at lower speeds and altitude the F4F might be lighter handling on the controls and 'more fun' than a Hellcat but after 1942 the concept of intricate turning, out-maneuvering acrobat-style dogfights in the Pacific had been discarded.
>>65485278That's why the Navy loved Hellcats. A boring plane to fly is a plane that's safe and easy to learn, one that can take off and land on a carrier without much fuss, one that can cruise for a couple hours escorting strike planes without having to fiddle with the controls. It may not be exciting, but it works, and that wins wars.
I have heard that heavy bomber pilots were utterly exhausted upon returning from a mission; did the control sticks and pedals also become heavy to operate in large, high-horsepower fighter aircraft?
>>65488267>easy to learnThe Hellcat was an excellent fighter from the time it was introduced mid-war. The mass of USN naval aviation recruits were able to learn how to not only fly it but operate from carrier decks much more effectively than the F4U. It was simple to maintain, tough, had excellent range and could carry a powerful air-to-ground ordnance load.>>65488691>heavy bomber pilotsThat was because planes like B-17 and B-24 were difficult to fly in formation; the B-24 for example had relatively heavy controls with a slow roll rate (from its long wing coupled with added outer-wing fuel tanks) and also relatively poor visibility from the cockpit windows, plus a slow rate of climb fully loaded. RE: the bigger more powerful fighter planes yes they were more of a handful and not as nimble as smaller, lighter ones but they also offered much improved range, performance and flight stability. As the OP book excerpt says, flying a plane half the weight of a Hellcat by comparison seems 'fun' and responsive.
>>65485278>I remember waiting outside one of the Links while inside, under the hood, Taylor fought the machine, jerking it about as though he would wrestle it into doing what it was supposed to do. The instructor watched his instruments impassively, and finally picked up his microphone: ‘Cadet,’ he said, ‘you are now two thousand feet underground.’This fuckin sent me
>>65491161My university has one of those Link trainers, neat stuff.
the Avenger needs more discussion on this board
>>65488691Big planes have all-axis trim and late-war bombers had simple autopilots, so flying one wouldn't be exhausting. But flying in formation requires constant attention and constant inputs, which is exhausting in a big plane.
>>65485278Why are USNavy planes named after cats?
>>65497200It wasn't a Navy thing, it was a Grumman thing. Started with the Wildcat and ended up being a marketing thing for them.
>>65486194>I do not know if this was intentional. Later cannon were 20 millimeter and fired much faster - babababababa, like that - and titillated you in a subtly different way. Some men enjoyed it more. I was a 37-millimeter man myself.this is marvelous.
^^nice
>>65488691bomber missions typically lasted much longer than fighter missions
>>65486194
