Talk:Grumman F4F Wildcat/Archive 1

Fixes
What I did edited the page and put the scaled font size, which was 72% to 100 percent. Now it's okay. It seems that the text box was behaving badly in all browsers, due the font scaling down. 212.50.134.60 11:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A minor, but not overly picky point on your caption for the photo of the F4F on Guadalcanal. . . The correct squadron for the F4F in the picture is VF-11, not VF-111. VF-11 was established as RVF-11 in August 1942, was re-established as VF-11 in October 1942, was redesignated VF-11A in November 1946 and redesignated VF-111 in July 1948. The squadron was disestablished on 19 January 1959 and on 20 January, VA-156 was redesignated VF-111. This last incarnation of VF-111 adopted the Sundowners insignia (which, apropos of nothing else, was designed by my father at NAS Maui in the winter of 1942-1943) and traditions of the previous VF-111, but had no connection to the squadron which served in WWII. This last VF-111 was redesignated VF-26 on 1 September 1964 and then redesignated back to VF-111 on 17 September. The squadron was finally disestablished at the end of March 1995.

-

Correct, thanx. Changed to "VF-11". Felix c 23:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Wildcat's ruggedness
There was a line in the Operation Service section mentioning a Zero pilot's experience unloading his machine guns into a Wildcat fighter, without successfully shooting down the Wildcat, during the Battle of Midway. Since there didn't seem to be a cite for it, and since there WAS a cited reference in the next paragraph to a Zero pilot having a similar exerpeince at Guadalcanal, I removed the first note.--Raguleader 22:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

F4F Wildcat Image Gallery
Hello,

I have started doing an aircraft image gallery(hobby project) and I think it will be useful to add a link to it here. I have tried this in the past but I broke some rules (you are not allowed to add links to your own website) so it was deleted by another user (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TAG.Odessa#Why_are_you_deleting_the_external_links.3F).

The solution, according to the 'external links' rules : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest is to "please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it".

F4F Wildcat Image Gallery : http://www.aircraft-list.com/db/Grumman_F4F_Wildcat/47/

So please look over that page and if you think it is useful then add it, if not then just ignore this message.

Thanks

Best wishes

Nekhbet 08:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Problem with the first paragraph
In the paragraph is written that this plane was used "for the first year and a half of World War II". But World War II started on September 1, 1939 and in in the infobox of this plane is written "Introduced 	December 1940". I think what is meant is "the first year and a half that the US was involved in WWII"?S Sepp 17:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If the retired date is accurate then that's still wrong. Its a relatively useless statement and I would think someone should just cut it. -- Thatguy96 17:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Two sets of Specifications
Is there anything so significant between the F4F-3 and -4 variants to warrant a separate specifications table? That's not usually done unless there are major changes within a type's history, say the Supermarine Spitfire Mk 1 and Supermarine Spitfire Mk 22. I am requesting an opinion poll to see if this is needed. My personal view is that the article can state the differences in the variants section or in the body of the text under design and development phases. FWIW Bzuk 20:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC).


 * Not between those two versions. At a push, perhaps the FM2 could warrant separate specs, although even in that case there wouldn't be much difference. Nigel Ish 21:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

B class
A reference is needed for the specifications then this is surely up for a B class review. Nimbus227 (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Nimbus227 (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, 2 bits of information I thought might be good for the article are, the self sealing fuel tanks that could take several shells, and also that the wildcat is/was one of the only aircraft ever built to have no limitations (as far as control inputs) you can do whatever you want with the stick and throttle and not over stress or damage the aircraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.214.11.170 (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 08:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Enzo" :
 * Angelucci 1987, p. 226.
 * Angelucci, 1987. p. 227.

Image copyright problem with Image:Midway FM2.jpg
The image Image:Midway FM2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --06:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

B class? Not yet
Looking the article over, I see lots of paragraphs that don't have references, which I understand is a de facto requirement for B-class. So I've bumped it down to C class until additional references are provided. - The Bushranger (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Variants
The name 'Martlet' was only used for the earlier versions if the F4F Wildcat by the Royal (British) Navy, NEVER by the US Navy.
 * Dirk, I know you are a newcomer, but you have to sign your posts. In order to have other editors respond to your comments, it is customary to provide the following: user id and date and time of submission using the Coordinated Universal Time or UTC code. See my signature line and just copy it as yours with the appropriate changes. BTW, I don't see your point about the Martlet name in that it is clear in the body of the article that it is used as the Fleet Air Arm appelation. Bzuk 0:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Another way to sign your name and add the time is to put 4 tildes (~) at the end of your post, and it adds you name and time automatically. - BillCJ 00:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Bzuk, "The F4F-3A would enter service as the Martlet III(B), the FM-1 as the Martlet V, and the FM-2 as the Wildcat VI (By then the Martlet name was dropped and the planes were reverted to using the name Wildcat). The name Wildcat was still commonly used for these aircraft in spite of the official name change.[citation needed]" suggests to me to opposite of what happened: Britts changed to name of the Martlet (to avoid confusion) to Wildcat, it's American name. British pilots might still call their planes MARTLET in spite of the official name change! Dirk P Broer 01:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
 * The Martlet name was instituted by the Fleet Air Arm from the type's introduction into service in 1940 and continued to be used officially until 1944. I still don't get your point, the names Martlet and Wildcat were used simultaneously by different air arms which was typical of the times. In the case of the RAF nomenclature for US aircraft the names "Lightning" and "Mustang" were eventually adopted for the P-38 and P-51 respectively, it's just the nature of the times and the customs of naming protocols that occurred in wartime. BTW, the end period on my posts is my personal signature but feel free to use it.Bzuk 1:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
 * It would be better to state that even the British pilots preferred the name 'Wildcat' over that of the official 'Martlet', the phrase "The name Wildcat was still commonly used for these aircraft in spite of the official name change" does not do justice to the fact that the name 'Martlet was already used for almost a year by the Royal Navy before the name 'Wildcat' was used by the US Navy or Grumman.Dirk P Broer 08:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there is any evidence of a preference of one name over another in British service; typically, the Admiralty made those decisions. I have annotated a reference to the name change in the "notes" section of the "references." Bzuk 11:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC).


 * The FAA used its own names in the early period of the war but after the US entered in 1941 the FAA later went over to using the US names, presumably to simplify the ordering process. The FAA names were; 'Tarpon' for the Grumman Avenger, and 'Gannet' for the Grumman Hellcat, the latter FAA names being almost unknown nowadays, and I believe that by the time the Avenger and Hellcat were used by the FAA the US names had supplanted the early FAA ones so that it would be very unusual to find these names used by the pilots flying them.


 * BTW, the strange-seeming choice of names for the FAA aircraft is simple - fighters were named after seabirds, and torpedo bombers were named after fish - hence Martlet (Wildcat), Gannet (Hellcat), Fulmar, and Skua, and Swordfish, Barracuda, and Tarpon (Avenger) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.74.160 (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

More about the variants: the detailed Wildcat production tally on www.vectorsite.net/avwcat.html comes to 8.061 built Wildcats, the article here speaks of both 7.722 and 7.860, anyone a definitive answer?. Can we include a table listing the differences between all variants and also giving the numbers of them actually built? Dirk P Broer 13:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Any reference about the Belgian Martlet order?
''In 1940, Belgium also placed an order for at least 10 Martlet Mk 1s. These were to be modified with the removal of the tailhook, however, after the surrender of Belgium, none were delivered and by May 10, 1940, the aircraft order was transferred to the Royal Navy.''

Could anybody quote a reference or two that would confirm an order officially placed?

From Richard S. Dann's "F4F Wildcat in action" (Aircraft No. 191, ISBN: 978-0897474696), a price quotation was requested in late November 1939 by the Belgian Air Mission officer (Major Theis).

Could it have been just that, an informal request?

JanMasterson (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

F4F-3S "Wildcatfish": BuNo changed from 4083 to 4038.
On 12 September 2012, I changed the stated BuNo of the single F4F-3S "Wildcatfish" from 4083 to 4038, based on several reliable sources I found on the Web:

- http://www.joebaugher.com/navy_serials/secondseries1.html

- http://www.public.navy.mil/airfor/centennial/Documents/1st%20Centennial%20Newsletter.pdf

- http://www.uswarplanes.net/wildcat.html

- http://1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/2326.htm

- http://www.angelfire.com/dc/jinxx1/Wildcat/F4F.html

- http://www.navytimes.com/legacy/new/0-NAVYPAPER-909169.php

- http://www.aerofiles.com/_grum.html

--FabBar (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC) -- 21:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Double post, please delete. JanMasterson (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)