# Best fixed-gear monoplane fighter?



## Oreo (Jul 25, 2008)

We'll lay it right out there-- which of those early war fixed gear fighters was the best? By best, we mean, most combat-worthy, and reliable. Go for it. Probably I'll forget something significant-- I usually do.


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 25, 2008)

I like the creativity of your polls Oreo.

The A5M.. "Claude"

The P-26 was the coolest looking though

.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 25, 2008)

Why didn't you vote for it then? I put it on there.


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 25, 2008)

There must of been a lapse between your post and the poll appearing... it wasnt there when I made my post.


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 25, 2008)

cool comparison engine:

Aircraft Side-by-Side Comparison

.


----------



## Juha (Jul 25, 2008)

Hello 
I voted for Ki-27 even if A5M was very close, at least Ki-27 made bigger impact because there were more of them.

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Jul 25, 2008)

I have to place my vote in the "other category" The Curtiss Hawk 75N, used by the Thais and the Argentiniansis, IMO the finest fixed undercarriage a/c. 

The attached image is from Wings Pallette


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 25, 2008)

The Ki and the Mitsu are very close but I think the range of the Claude makes it a better all around plane.

one on one I'd take the Ki-27. 200 against 200 in a real word scenario with a mix of pilot skill levels, I'd take the Claude.

,


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 26, 2008)

parsifal said:


> I have to place my vote in the "other category" The Curtiss Hawk 75N, used by the Thais and the Argentiniansis, IMO the finest fixed undercarriage a/c.



parsifal, 
the Hawk 75 is included in the poll.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 26, 2008)

your right, gosh im a dummy


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 26, 2008)

I'd say the 920 hp Pegasus powered D.XXI-5 was the best, albeit only 5 built.

The D.XXI-2 (with 830 hp Mercury) was also quite good. Decent performance and armament. (the Hawk also having a decent armament, but worse performance, although long range)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 26, 2008)

I went with the D.XXI-2. Look what the Finns did with it and it did hold its own against the 109 considering.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 26, 2008)

Here are the performance stats for the major types (taken mostly from wiki)

Fokker DXXI

Max takeoff weight: 1,970 kg (4,399 lb) 
Powerplant: 1× Bristol Mercury VIII air-cooled, 9-cylinder, radial, 619 kW (830 hp) 
Maximum speed: 418 km/h (260 mph) 
Range: 930 km (502 nm, 574 mi) 
Service ceiling 9,350 m (30,675 ft) 
Rate of climb: 6,000 m in 7 min 30 sec (19,680 ft) 
4 × 7.92 mm FN Browning M36 machine guns

Hawk 75N
Empty weight: Unknown 
Max takeoff weight: 2568 kg (5305 lb) 
Powerplant: Wright Cyclone R1820 Derated (875 HP) 
Maximum speed: 450 km/h (280 mph) 
Range: 1950 km (1058 nm, 1210 mi) 
Service ceiling 9,693 m (31,900 ft) 
Rate of climb: Unknown 
1 or 2 .50 and 2 or 3 .30 guns

Nakajima Ki-27

Empty weight: 1,174 kg (2,588 lb) 
Loaded weight: 1,598 kg (3,523 lb) 
Max takeoff weight: 1,790 kg (3,946 lb) 
Powerplant: 1× Nakajima Ha-1 Otsu air-cooled radial engine, 485 kW (650 hp) 
Maximum speed: 444 km/h (275 mph) 
Range: 630 km (390 mi) 
Service ceiling 10,040 m (32,940 ft) 
Rate of climb: 15.3 m/s (3,010 ft/min) 
2 × 7.7 mm Type 89 machine guns, 500 rounds/gun or 1 x 12.7 machine gun and 1 x 7.7 machine gun on later models 
External bomb load of 220 pounds

Mitsubishi A5M Claude

Empty weight: 1,216 kg (2,681 lb) 
Loaded weight: 1,705 kg (3,759 lb) 
Max takeoff weight: 1,822 kg[10] (4,017 lb) 
Powerplant: 1× Nakajima Kotobuki 41 9-cylinder radial engine, 585 kW (785 hp) at 3,000 m (9,840 ft) 
Maximum speed: 440 km/h (237 knots, 273 mph) at 3,000 m (9,840 ft)[10] 
Range: 1,200 km (649 NM, 746 mi) 
Service ceiling 9,800 m (32,150 ft) 
Rate of climb: m/s (ft/min) 
Guns: 2 × 7.7 mm Type 97 machine guns(0.303 in) fuselage-mounted machine guns 


The comparisons are a lot closer than I had imagined. The nakajima and the Mitsubishi would have been the most manouverable IMO, but were the lightest built and most lightly armed. I also think that the two Japanese models would have been the best climbers, but the worst divers.

The Fokker would have been more manouverable than the Curtiss IMO, and would have climbed better. It did not poses quite the range of the Curtiss. 

The Curtiss was the most heavily armed, and possessed the best range. It would have been the most ruggedly constructed, but i think its climb and turn characteristics would have been the worst. I am betting its diving capability would have been the best out of the bunch.

So it gets down to what you consider to be the most important characteristics I guess.


----------



## Juha (Jul 26, 2008)

Hello Parsifal
I doubt that Fokker D. XXI was more manoeuvre than Hawk 75N. Fokker had light controls and effective control surfaces but also harsh stall and it stalled rather easily being tip staller and went rather easily to spin. Good points were that because its light controls speed didn’t had much effect on its manoeuvrability and good control in dives. Bad, needed careful control because tendency to tip stall at any speed and to spin.

Finns thought that Fokker was a good interceptor but not a good dogfighter.

On the other hand Hawk 75A was very manoeuvrable horizontally but a poor climber. I don’t have info on Hawk 75N.

Juha


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 26, 2008)

According to: WW2 Warbirds: the Fokker D.XXI - Frans Bonn

The top speed of the D.XXI-2 at altitude (16,730 ft) was 386 mph.


----------



## Juha (Jul 26, 2008)

Hello Kool Kitty
According to Finnish tests D. XXI max speed was 418 km/h.

Juha


----------



## Oreo (Jul 26, 2008)

that's not very fast-- I think the dutch version was a little faster, maybe


----------



## Oreo (Jul 26, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> According to: WW2 Warbirds: the Fokker D.XXI - Frans Bonn
> 
> The top speed of the D.XXI-2 at altitude (16,730 ft) was 386 mph.



Not sure but I''m thinking that might supposed to be 286 mph. The figure I was thinking of for the D.21 was around 276, which would put it right smack in the middle of the other three for performance. By the way, does anyone know how the PZL did for maneuverability versus the others? We know it's slower, it did have 4-gun armament available, and with the high gull wing vision must have been excellent. It managed to hold its own against the German bombers, but was a full 100 mph slower than Bf 109E.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 26, 2008)

THe takeoff ratings for the Finnish D.XXI with 825 hp Twin Wasp Jr. was similar to the Dutch version's 830 hp Mercury, but I think the critical altitude for the Wasp was around 12,000 ft while the Mercury was at ~16,500 ft.

However the 286 mph figure may have been mistakenly mixed in, as that seems to be the figure for the Pegasus powered version.


----------



## Juha (Jul 26, 2008)

Hello Kool Kitty
I should have made it clear on my earlier message, 418 km/h was for Mercury powered version.
Max speed for Twin Wasp Jr engined version was 361,5 km/h at 2500 m.

Juha


----------



## Oreo (Jul 26, 2008)

Well, the only book I seem to have on hand with the D.21 seems to indicate 286 mph at 16,732 ft for the Mercury 8 version, and a service ceiling of 36,000 ft, which is higher than pilots could normally go without getting the bends. Most impressive, that, and yet it must be remembered that most P-39's had service ceiling of 34-37,000 feet, and yet we've been told their flight characteristics were no good over 16,000 ft, so service ceiling is not really a super good indication of capabilities.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 26, 2008)

Fokker DXXI

That site has figures that seem to match the "normal" ones, but the Finnish figures seem a bit lower. (possibly the usualy figures are caculated and not test data)

Though those Finnish figures make the Gladiator compare favorably...


But I've seen high figures for some of the others too. (292 mph for the Ki-27)


----------



## Oreo (Jul 26, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Fokker DXXI
> 
> But I've seen high figures for some of the others too. (292 mph for the Ki-27)



I've seen those figures before, too. Don't know if it was a different version, a different test, or just a bunch of hooey. Who knows?


----------



## Marcel (Jul 27, 2008)

According to my figures the D.XXI was rated at 460 km/h maximum level speed, don't know at which altitude, though. Cruise speed should have been around 430 km/h according to these figures. These are LVA figures, but I'm not sure how accurate they are.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 27, 2008)

Marcel said:


> According to my figures the D.XXI was rated at 460 km/h maximum level speed, don't know at which altitude, though. Cruise speed should have been around 430 km/h according to these figures. These are LVA figures, but I'm not sure how accurate they are.



287 mph, then, which would about make it the fastest of our options, except maybe some Hawk 75's.


----------



## marshall (Jul 27, 2008)

Oreo said:


> By the way, does anyone know how the PZL did for maneuverability versus the others? We know it's slower, it did have 4-gun armament available, and with the high gull wing vision must have been excellent. It managed to hold its own against the German bombers, but was a full 100 mph slower than Bf 109E.




Maneuverability of PZL P.11 was exeptional, it was the biggest advantage of the plane together with high service ceiling and good diving abilities, of course for a fixed-gear machine. G limit was 16g so pilot was limited only by his imagination and health. During 1939 campaing less then half of P.11s was shot down by enemy planes because the 11 were hard to shot down because of very good maneuverability and often 109 pilots were just flying away when they couldn't shot down the 11. Even once Stanislaw Skalski in P.11 was alone fighting with 3 109s and he survived. More than a half of the P.11s was destroyed on the ground. Despite all of this one of the best fighters of early 30's was completely outdated in 1939.


Now my vote. I voted on other because I want to bring another plane into discussion. The PZL P.24, final incarnation of original Pulawski's design. Never used by Polish Air Force but used by other countries. Maneuverability slighlty worse than P.11 because of increased weight but still very good and very good visibility.
Empty weight: 1330kg
Max takeoff weight: 2000kg
Powerplant: 970 hp (723 kW) Gnome-Rhône 14N.07 14-cylinder two-row radial engine
Speed: 430km/h at 4500m
Service ceiling: 10500m
Climb: 5m 40s to 5000m
Range: 700km
Armament: two 20mm cannons (Oerlikon FF) plus two 7.9mm MGs or four 7.9mm MGs
also the plane could take four 12.5kg bombs or two 50kg bombs


Plus beautiful looks (prototype on the photo).


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 27, 2008)

That's a good point, something to consider, with an enclosed cockpit as well.


The Miles M.20 was probably the best made, but it came a bit later (first flew in mid 1940), and didn't enter production.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 27, 2008)

marshall said:


> Now my vote. I voted on other because I want to bring another plane into discussion. The PZL P.24, final incarnation of original Pulawski's design. Never used by Polish Air Force but used by other countries. Maneuverability slighlty worse than P.11 because of increased weight but still very good and very good visibility.



Stink! I knew I'd forget one!


----------



## Oreo (Jul 27, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> The Miles M.20 was probably the best made, but it came a bit later (first flew in mid 1940), and didn't enter production.



I believe the M20 never saw squadron service, whereas the others did.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 28, 2008)

Well, since it didn't enter production, that's kind of a given, I just thought it deserved a mention. (like the FDB-1 in the late biplane fighter thread)


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 28, 2008)

Points for style..

The "Cutiest" airplane ever in circus colors.
Chino 2006 Airshow Highlights
.


----------



## seesul (Jul 28, 2008)

Avia B-35/135

General characteristics

* Crew: one pilot
* Length: 8.50 m (27 ft 11 in)
* Wingspan: 10.85 m (35 ft 7 in)
* Height: 2.60 m (8 ft 6 in)
* Wing area: 17.00 m² (183 ft²)
* Empty weight: 1,690 kg (3,726 lb)
* Gross weight: 2,200 kg (4,850 lb)
* Powerplant: 1 × Hispano-Suiza 12Ycrs, 640 kW (860 hp)

Performance

* Maximum speed: 495 km/h (308 mph)
* Range: 500 km (311 miles)
* Rate of climb: 13.0 m/s (2,560 ft/min)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 28, 2008)

Wouldn't that fall in the same category as the Miles M.20, as it didn't enter service? (not to mention production -same for the M.20-)


----------



## Oreo (Jul 28, 2008)

My criteria was squadron service, like still in service by late 30's. Even so I forgot the P.24. And possibly others.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 28, 2008)

obviously we could talk about the Fokker Eindecker. . . . lol


----------



## Oreo (Jul 28, 2008)

comiso90 said:


> Points for style..
> 
> The "Cutiest" airplane ever in circus colors.
> Chino 2006 Airshow Highlights
> .



nice picture.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 28, 2008)

P.11 and P.24 were decent planes, but I think the high wing hampered the pilot's view, a bad thing for a fighter.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 28, 2008)

Marcel said:


> P.11 and P.24 were decent planes, but I think the high wing hampered the pilot's view, a bad thing for a fighter.



Actually I'm not sure that's accurate. Look at the PZL cockpit's position on a good 3-view and ask yourself what could you see from in there, then compare that to a low-wing plane. The PZL pilot could see much more downward than a low-wing fighter, he could see above him, to the sides, and straight ahead, and pretty good to the rear. Possibly the best vision of any WWII fighter. Maybe. Take another look.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 28, 2008)

Oreo said:


> Actually I'm not sure that's accurate. Look at the PZL cockpit's position on a good 3-view and ask yourself what could you see from in there, then compare that to a low-wing plane. The PZL pilot could see much more downward than a low-wing fighter, he could see above him, to the sides, and straight ahead, and pretty good to the rear. Possibly the best vision of any WWII fighter. Maybe. Take another look.



I did:













Look at the wing. If the pilot looks left, he'll see a wing. He can only look foreward in a straight line, slightly left and right and he's looking at the wing. Foreward and down his view is hampered by the wing struds. Yeah, he can look straight down and backwards, but that's not the point for a fighter, is it?
View was probably better than that of a biplane, but there's a reason why later fighter designs were all low wing.


----------



## Thorlifter (Jul 28, 2008)

I'll go with the Ki-27.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 28, 2008)

Marcel said:


> I did:
> 
> Look at the wing. If the pilot looks left, he'll see a wing. He can only look foreward in a straight line, slightly left and right and he's looking at the wing. Foreward and down his view is hampered by the wing struds. Yeah, he can look straight down and backwards, but that's not the point for a fighter, is it?
> View was probably better than that of a biplane, but there's a reason why later fighter designs were all low wing.



Well I guess I'd have to fly it to know for sure.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 28, 2008)

Oreo said:


> Well I guess I'd have to fly it to know for sure.



Ah yes, that would be something


----------



## Oreo (Jul 28, 2008)

For the record, I'd enjoy flying any plane we've talked about on this thread.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 28, 2008)

Yes, you'll never forget to lower your gear before landing  Unfortunately there aren't many left. As far as I know, only 1 D.XXI still exists


----------



## marshall (Jul 28, 2008)

About the visibility in PZL fighters. In P.11 it was very good because it was an open cockpit plane, so you could look under or above wing but in P.24 it couldn't be as good because of the closed cockpit. I know that simulations aren't real life but you can check the visibility of P.11 in Targetware mod War over Poland. It's not great but it's better than you think after looking on the photos of the plane.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 28, 2008)

The P.11 is also playable in Il-2.


----------



## Juha (Jul 28, 2008)

In Finland we have one real thing, D. XXI I mean and in Holland there is at least one good replica.

Juha


----------



## Oreo (Jul 28, 2008)

marshall said:


> About the visibility in PZL fighters. In P.11 it was very good because it was an open cockpit plane, so *you could look under or above wing* but in P.24 it couldn't be as good because of the closed cockpit. I know that simulations aren't real life but you can check the visibility of P.11 in Targetware mod War over Poland. It's not great but it's better than you think after looking on the photos of the plane.



That's what I thought.


----------



## Oreo (Aug 6, 2008)

Marcel,
I found in one of my books the following paragraph:

(referring to D.21)

"These aircraft's most important victory took place at dawn on May 10, 1940. . . . . . they succeeded in shooting down 38 . . . . Ju 52's out of a group of 55 that was crossing the Dutch border."

Not bad. Go Dutch!


----------



## Marcel (Aug 8, 2008)

Yes the Germans lost a hell of a lot Ju52's on that day, and even worse, a lot of fallschirm jaeger in the process.


----------



## Marcel (Aug 9, 2008)

Oreo said:


> Marcel,
> I found in one of my books the following paragraph:
> 
> (referring to D.21)
> ...



BTW, I never found evidence about this epic battle, so I think it's somewhat overrated. Most Ju52's were destroyed by AA and on the ground.


----------



## colly123 (Jan 1, 2012)

Just found this thread. 
One fighter that isn't on the list is the Ikarus IK-2 a fighter developed ind produced in Yugoslavia in the late Thirties. a dozen or so made it to squadron service and saw action in 1941 against the Germans.
Heres a pic:
http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/343/pics/77_2.jpg

Here's the specs:

Performance
Powerplant: 1 × Hispano-Suiza 12Ycrs liquid-cooled V12 engine 3-bladed, adjustable pitch, 860 shp (642 kW)
Maximum speed: 270 mph at 16,400 ft (435 km/h at 5,000 m)
Cruise speed: 155 mph (250 km/h)
Range: 435 miles (700 km)
Service ceiling: 39,400 ft (12,000 m)
Wing loading: 22 lb/ft² (107 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.21 hp/lb (0.35 kW/kg)
Armament
1 × 20 mm Hispano-Suiza HS.404 cannon with 60 rounds
2 × 7.92 mm Darne machine guns

Seems comparable to all the others in the list. It was evaluated against a Hawker Fury biplane and outperformed it in all respects so must have been quite manoeuverable.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 5, 2012)

A toss-up between the A5M and the PZL P-11 for no other reason than I like the look of the P-11. I visited the museum in Poland once and had a good look around it. A mervellos piece of machinery and very smart.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 21, 2012)

For no better reason than I like the armament and its DNA linkage to the P-36 for which I've always had affection.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 22, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> A toss-up between the A5M and the PZL P-11 for no other reason than I like the look of the P-11. I visited the museum in Poland once and had a good look around it. A mervellos piece of machinery and very smart.



Poles were legendary for the smartness for many of their pieces of military hardware and uniforms. The only thing I dont like are their 1939 uniforms, very average IMO.


----------

