When I got to fly an FM-2 many years ago, I was warned to never let the gear free-fall since you could have a chain come off a sprocket and jam the gear halfway.
The FM2 nee F4F was derived from the F3F, a biplane. It's impractical to fold gear into the lower wing of a biplane. So when Grumman got the word that the F4F had to be a monoplane it went to a single wing design but retained the out-of-date gear system.
...Monogram had a 1/32 (or 1/48) kit of the F3 that had the retractable gear as you turned the prop...the good old days of great kits that didn't require a mortgage to buy...
I saw a wildcat fighter in the 90s at the Oklahoma City airshow, before Tom Jones tragically died, and the show stopped. It was with the "commemorative air force", down in Texas.
Hey guys , my family flew the Grumman goose sea planes to Catalina island early 1960’s and they had the same system , I was just a kid and asked my Dad what the pilots was doing , he said “ raising the landing gear !
That is maybe so, as the FAA acquired ex Aeronavale F4F,s after Frances Capitulation in June 1940, and a god send to the Atlantic Convoys when the FAA desperately needed decent carrier fighters. In the 21st century, peaceful activity of display flying, the tedious act of winding up the F4F,s undercarriage is exhausting. For example the Shuttleworth Trust,s Jewel in the crown the DH 88 Comet Racer G-ACSS Grosvenor House had its undercarriage converted to electric actuation using a canopy motor off a Blackburn Buccaneer Attack Bomber.
read once where early on in the war they'd take off then the hand crank was being worked and how they always wobbled as they flew away....now we know why. nice post.
I doubt those airplanes had too many landing gear system failures! Good and reliable, as long as your not being shot at whilst trying to take off, then this probably beats the added weight and complexity of an electric or hydraulic gear!
Note that the Japanese Mitsubishi A6M2 Zero and Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa both had hydraulic landing gear, despite being designed to save the maximum possible amount of weight (no self sealing fuel tanks or armour).
Why wouldn't the manufacturer have fitted servo motor/ gearbox ,seems crazy flying a plane a plane trying to wind the gear up, I can understand for an emergency lowering the gear manually.
@@joeblowe3180 thanks for the info, I didn't know that but regarding the Wildcats I understood that you somehow needed three or four hands to crank up or down the wheels..
In theory yeah, but an upside down aircraft right after takeoff is almost always a bad idea, unless you fly for the blue angels or something. Would be fun to see tho.
Not all engines like being upside down for more than a few seconds. Fuel or oil supply could be affected. I have no idea how the F4F deals with that. Also, like someone else already said, probably not a great idea to that sort of stuff whilst at low airspeed and with possible battle damage (at landing).
You’d think with 1350hp of American Thunder on the front of that plane that there’d be enough spare for undercarriage winding. The kids flying those planes had their hands full with takeoff and landing and didn’t need pointless lazy design like this.
Motor would only replace the crank and one chain, maybe, but now it needs electrical power, a fuse or circuit breaker, and that's more to break and maintain. Sometimes simple is good, the pilot only had to crank twice per flight, and he wasn't cranking during combat.
When you think that even the Japanese fighters, that put lightness above all, had powered landing gear operation, this decision by Grumman was inexcusable. I bet the thing pilots transitioning from the F4F to the F6F liked the most, wasn't the 2000 HP engine, but a landing gear that gets up and down with the flip of a switch.
...read about this when I was a kid, building 1/48 & 1/32 models - first time actually seeing it...I'm 74 now...
When I got to fly an FM-2 many years ago, I was warned to never let the gear free-fall since you could have a chain come off a sprocket and jam the gear halfway.
What ratings did you have that let you scoot away in THAT single seater? Triple digit hours in a T-6 or something?
The FM2 nee F4F was derived from the F3F, a biplane. It's impractical to fold gear into the lower wing of a biplane. So when Grumman got the word that the F4F had to be a monoplane it went to a single wing design but retained the out-of-date gear system.
...Monogram had a 1/32 (or 1/48) kit of the F3 that had the retractable gear as you turned the prop...the good old days of great kits that didn't require a mortgage to buy...
VERY COOL demo ! Thanks
Wow I would've thought the hand crank would've been a back up system, not the primary.
I got tired just watching him. Lol
Great video Guys
I saw a wildcat fighter in the 90s at the Oklahoma City airshow, before Tom Jones tragically died, and the show stopped. It was with the "commemorative air force", down in Texas.
Hey guys , my family flew the Grumman goose sea planes to Catalina island early 1960’s and they had the same system , I was just a kid and asked my Dad what the pilots was doing , he said “ raising the landing gear !
They had windows in floor as well to see ships etc. below aircraft.
Deleted on the FM2. The window was of marginal value and compromised the structure.
Pick Pickering had a much faster and simpler way of lowering the gear. 😂
Time to take the W. E. B. Griffin books off the shelf for a re-read.
That is maybe so, as the FAA acquired ex Aeronavale F4F,s after Frances Capitulation in June 1940, and a god send to the Atlantic Convoys when the FAA desperately needed decent carrier fighters. In the 21st century, peaceful activity of display flying, the tedious act of winding up the F4F,s undercarriage is exhausting. For example the Shuttleworth Trust,s Jewel in the crown the DH 88 Comet Racer G-ACSS Grosvenor House had its undercarriage converted to electric actuation using a canopy motor off a Blackburn Buccaneer Attack Bomber.
As a fellow Scotsman, someone recently told me that this is called 'cardio'. Whatever that means.
Did he have to turn his own propeller? Just wonderin'...😂
read once where early on in the war they'd take off then the hand crank was being worked and how they always wobbled as they flew away....now we know why. nice post.
I doubt those airplanes had too many landing gear system failures! Good and reliable, as long as your not being shot at whilst trying to take off, then this probably beats the added weight and complexity of an electric or hydraulic gear!
Note that the Japanese Mitsubishi A6M2 Zero and Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa both had hydraulic landing gear, despite being designed to save the maximum possible amount of weight (no self sealing fuel tanks or armour).
Why wouldn't the manufacturer have fitted servo motor/ gearbox ,seems crazy flying a plane a plane trying to wind the gear up, I can understand for an emergency lowering the gear manually.
We just gonna act like there's not an F-104 starfighter parked in the background?
Will it fly again
sure does takes a while! I wouldn't want to be in trouble, fighting for flight only then have to crank for a minute lol
Better a crank than an electrical system to fail, pilots loved this aircraft
Would the Wildcat have competed successfully against the ME-109 if they ever encountered each other?
Depends on the version of the Me-109. The early Me-109E, yes. The later Me-109F and Me-109G, no.
@@timonsolus Thanks for reply. 😊
Funny how the plane equipped with electrical panel but can't afford a small electric motor to crank the gear mechanism 😅
Krazee!
It was possibly the main criticism of the Wildcats when taking off and landing but it was a good and a very sturdy airplane
but positive feeling is that pilots didn't forget to extend it or retract it :)
@@pietroseven8228 yes but it has window panels at the floor and you have to hand crank up or down....
It wasn't the only plane that had hand crank. A lot of other small planes did that too, to save on weight and volume
@@joeblowe3180 thanks for the info, I didn't know that but regarding the Wildcats I understood that you somehow needed three or four hands to crank up or down the wheels..
I will never understand why they just didnt install an electric motor where the crank handle is and be done with that nonesense???
La infabilidad mecánica 😅. A menos que se rompa esa cadena va a funcionar
Would it work better to roll the aircraft inverted and then raise the gear, or are there technical reasons not to?
In theory yeah, but an upside down aircraft right after takeoff is almost always a bad idea, unless you fly for the blue angels or something. Would be fun to see tho.
@@pioboss9823basic physics escape most people. It’s why there’s signs everywhere 😂
Not all engines like being upside down for more than a few seconds. Fuel or oil supply could be affected. I have no idea how the F4F deals with that. Also, like someone else already said, probably not a great idea to that sort of stuff whilst at low airspeed and with possible battle damage (at landing).
There is a lot of stuff, for one bullet to hit, to muff that up. Get shot in the arm and you are belly landing.
No, the gear will lower pretty much on its own after you flip the lock. Make a slight turn as it reaches the bottom and it will lock into place.
You’d think with 1350hp of American Thunder on the front of that plane that there’d be enough spare for undercarriage winding. The kids flying those planes had their hands full with takeoff and landing and didn’t need pointless lazy design like this.
I would convert the undercarriage to electric actuation using a motor off a Beech King Air, all those bicycle chains so archaic and Victorian.
This plane performed very well in the war and was well-liked by pilots
Aka I-16 inspired!
Russia didn't invent the handcrank... you realize that right? You actually didn't invent much aircraft-wise
На русском ,, И - 16,, это было использовано еще раньше...😉
You also lost a lot more aircraft than your enemy. Typical Russians
You also lost a lot more aircraft than your enemy. In normal Russian fashion lmao
Why can't they include a DC motor to do the cranking? Given all those levers and gears and chains, adding a motor wouldn't already be too complex!
Motor would only replace the crank and one chain, maybe, but now it needs electrical power, a fuse or circuit breaker, and that's more to break and maintain. Sometimes simple is good, the pilot only had to crank twice per flight, and he wasn't cranking during combat.
When you think that even the Japanese fighters, that put lightness above all, had powered landing gear operation, this decision by Grumman was inexcusable. I bet the thing pilots transitioning from the F4F to the F6F liked the most, wasn't the 2000 HP engine, but a landing gear that gets up and down with the flip of a switch.
@@magoid Pilots loved this aircraft. You're pretty misinformed
@@joeblowe3180I was talking about the landing gear crank. You tell me they loved that thing?