# Humble fighters



## tomo pauk (Mar 10, 2011)

While Mustangs, Spits and 109s capture the limelight for decades, I wonder how people rate rate planes like Re-2000, P-66, Buffalo etc. So please make your pick and say why ecatly that one. (Please don't say why not F4F, or Ki-43 - those are 'distinguished' ones).


----------



## dogsbody (Mar 10, 2011)

The Vultee for me!




Chris


----------



## fastmongrel (Mar 10, 2011)

Always liked the early war Italian fighters my favourite the Fiat G50. Sports car planes not muscle car planes not the fastest but possibly the best handling european fighters.


----------



## Thorlifter (Mar 10, 2011)

IAR-80 for me.


----------



## javlin (Mar 10, 2011)

The G55 had some nice lines for sure just not enough were made.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 10, 2011)

G.55 is from another league


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 10, 2011)

Brewster F2A for me. The Finns put it the Hall of Fame. Great deflection shooters. Great hockey players, too. 

MM


----------



## davparlr (Mar 10, 2011)

P-66 for me, bigger engine except for the F2A and P-35, and significantly faster than all.


----------



## al49 (Mar 10, 2011)

The Reggiane Re 2000 was a nice plane, more modern, reliable and faster then her competitor Macchi C200 and with longer range thanks to the wing tanks.
Unfortunately two factors denied her production in large numbers.
The first was related to above mentioned wing tanks: they were too prone to leek and it took too much time to find a good solution for this problem
Second and even more important: Reggiane had not enough financial and political power to compete against the "bigs" Fiat and Macchi.
Alberto


----------



## woljags (Mar 10, 2011)

out of the aircraft in the list it would have to be the Fiat but in my list for underated fighters for me must be the westland whirlwind,faster than both spitfire and hurricane but used 2 merlins and so not many built


----------



## fastmongrel (Mar 10, 2011)

woljags said:


> the westland whirlwind,faster than both spitfire and hurricane but used 2 merlins and so not many built



I think you mean it used 2 peregrine engines


----------



## parsifal (Mar 10, 2011)

I would say IAR 80, but i have to as, why not include the CAC-12 Boomerang in this list, as well as the Fokker DXXI


----------



## mudpuppy (Mar 11, 2011)

I'm going with the Brewster F2A; nearly obsolete by 1940 they were still very effective in the hands of the skilled Finnish airmen. I think that's a testament to both craft and pilot.
But that Re-2000 was a good performer as well.
Derek


----------



## prestosm321 (Mar 11, 2011)

P-66 for me. Wonder how she would have fared if given the chance when first produced.

Philip


----------



## davebender (Mar 11, 2011)

I like the Curtiss P-36. Performance isn't bad compared to other aircraft which entered service during 1938. 1940 combat record in French service is pretty good too. $23,000 unit cost makes it perhaps the least expensive WWII era fighter aircraft. Even less expensive then the dirt cheap Me-109. I'm surprised foreign nations with small GDPs such as Finland, Norway, Greece etc. didn't purchase P-36s as France did.


----------



## aircro (Mar 11, 2011)

davebender said:


> I like the Curtiss P-36. Performance isn't bad compared to other aircraft which entered service during 1938. 1940 combat record in French service is pretty good too. $23,000 unit cost makes it perhaps the least expensive WWII era fighter aircraft. Even less expensive then the dirt cheap Me-109. I'm surprised foreign nations with small GDPs such as Finland, Norway, Greece etc. didn't purchase P-36s as France did.


 
Hm, Norway did purchase Hawk 75 alias P-36, but, for me is one of most interesting fighters is P-43 Lancer.


----------



## merlin (Mar 12, 2011)

Though the Re.2000 saw little service with the Italian Air Force, it was built under-license in Hungary and fought against the Russians (anybody know how well).
I'v read that the RAF wanted to buy it, but this didn't happen because of the DoW, though others have said that it was the company trying to 'talk up' the plane!
Still if it had happened maybe no interest in North American building the P-40 i.e. no P-51 !!


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 12, 2011)

Gotta add the P-36/Hawk 75 to this poll.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 12, 2011)

The P-36 was discussed many times on our forum, unlike the planes from this poll.


----------



## alneal (Mar 12, 2011)

The Westland Whirlwind had good handling characteristics for a twin. I was still managable on one engine. The Peregrine engines had reliability problems, especially with overheating.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 12, 2011)

One of the problems encountered in the RE2000 was the fuel tank and supplt. Nearly all were failures because of major leak problems.

The Hungarian Mavag company undertook a major rework of the italian supplied copies and redesigned the armament and fuel supply systemss for their very similar Heja.

The type was lightly armed and lightly built and suffered quite heavy attrition in Russia to the elements and rough fields. however it was a highly manouverable aircraft and proved quite effective in the air, though its relatively slow speed meant VVS aircraft could always bug out in unfavourable situations.

The whole Re-2000 family were developed from the Seversky P-35, and were really development of the lightweight fighter concept that culminated in the abortive P-43. From there the US compaqny, now named Republic, with engines of great power, and the experiences of 1939-40 to draw upon did a U-turn, resulting in the development of the P-47 Thunderbolt....anything but a lightweight fighter


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 13, 2011)

While I do like Whirlwind, it's too 'fancy' expensive to qualify in this poll 

As for Re.2000 replacing P-40, 1st, it was comparable to P-36s RAF bought, while P-40 was step ahead. 2nd, even P-39 would be vastly better for RAF needs.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 13, 2011)

parsifal said:


> The whole Re-2000 family were developed from the Seversky P-35, and were really development of the lightweight fighter concept that culminated in the abortive P-43. From there the US compaqny, now named Republic, with engines of great power, and the experiences of 1939-40 to draw upon did a U-turn, resulting in the development of the P-47 Thunderbolt....anything but a lightweight fighter



What light weight fighter concept was that? And how did it "culminate" in the P-43?

P-35 (not P-35A) had an empty weight of just over 4300lbs, Hurricane MK I was 4,670lbs and a Spitfire I was about 4,400lbs (wooden prop no guns), Bf 109E was 4421lbs, MS 406 was 4189lbs and the I-16 was around 3,252lbs. again all empty weights. In 1935-37 nobody was actually making single engined fighters that weighed much more than the P-35. Are these all light weight fighters? And light in comparison to what, fighters that were built 5-7 years later?
The first 77 P-35s had 850hp P&W R-1830-9 engines, which were arguably the heaviest available american engine and perhaps the most powerful at that time. Military ratings didn't exist at the time and even nominal take-off ratings were not always quoted. A rated max continuous power (at a given altitude) was. Heaviest and perhaps most powerful engine fits into a "light fighter" how?

The P-43 was essentially a stop gap. While it used, again, the most powerful P&W engine available at the time (in any numbers), by the time the first production models rolled out the door the P-47 with it's R-2800 was not only on the drawing boards, contracts had been placed placed and the XP-47B had already made it's first flight. The 254 (?) P-43s were ordered to help Republic expand it's factory, keep and train it's work force for the ordered P-47s.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 13, 2011)

How about adding the CW-21B 'Demon' to this list? Seems to meet the selection criteria.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 13, 2011)

Yep, Demon would've fit the bill nicely. Sorry for not remembering it


----------



## parsifal (Mar 13, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> Yep, Demon would've fit the bill nicely. Sorry for not remembering it


 
Hi Tomo

Sorry for busting your chops, but wouldnt you also like to add the Ca-12 boomerang and the Fokker D-XXI?


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 14, 2011)

Boomerang surely fits 
As for the Fokker, I was thinking of it, but discarded it since it's performance was notably lower than other posted here, plus it would be the only one with fixed U/C (one of reasons for lower speed). OTOH, the XXI gave the sterling service, got to admit that.

Moderators, if it's possible, could you add the CW-21B Demon CA-12 Boomerang to the poll?


----------



## fastmongrel (Mar 14, 2011)

The Koolhoven FK 58 is a better Dutch candidate for the poll. An interesting aircraft that hardly ever gets a mention Koolhoven F.K.58 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 14, 2011)

It might be hardly mentioned be cause it hardly did anything. There are a bunch of fighters that were built into the hundreds that get little recognition. There were prototypes made in ones, twos and threes whose promise was cut short by developments and then there are planes that were built in the dozen to 4 dozen range. Enough to actually see service but not enough to establish any real kind of service record that offers any hope of evaluating them. The data base is just too small. The Koolhoven FK 58 falls into the last category. Wiki says 47 operational sorties, 5 more or less changes it's total by over 10%. one landing or take-off accident more or less in 50 flights really skews the record. With more built and flown it might be a worthy contender but with just 17 built it is little more than a foot note.


----------



## davebender (Mar 14, 2011)

IMO not the best fighter aircraft. However it was the most numerous Imperial Japanese Army fighter at the beginning of WWII. Apparently it was able to defeat the much faster American made P-40s in the Philippines and East Indies.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 14, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> What light weight fighter concept was that? And how did it "culminate" in the P-43?.




Lightweight not because of frame weight or engine power. light weight because of the relatively few fasteners used in the airframe and because of the relatively light armament. Similar concepts were used in the production of the Japanese A6M and Ki-43. 

The Re-2000 was built lightly compared to its main rival, the MC200. 

Your own explanation regarding the P-43 explains the concept of the Lightweight Fighter to a tee, as well as the why and how it gave way to the P-47. I dont need to add to that explanation


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 15, 2011)

It wasn't really a concept in the US. Try sticking eight .50 cal guns and ammo in a 1000hp fighter and see how fast it goes or how well it climbs. 
US requirements of the time also specified an 8 "G" load factor with an ultimate load of 12 "G"s. the designer is free to use whatever form of construction will stand up to those limits. Many countries in 1936-39 were specifying less than needed armament. The Americans were specifying At least one .50 cal MG and one .30 cal mg(and had been for years) if not two. One .50 weighs 2 1/2 times what a .30 cal gun did, so a US plane with a spec'ed .50 ad .30 was carrying a load equivalent to 3 1/2-4 rifle caliber MGs. The P-43 had four .50cal guns. 
There were light weight fighters during the thirties, as in lighter than a "standard" fighter. 
The ANF-Mureaux 190 was one. 450 hp engine and 2844 lb take-off weight, not empty. The Vickers venom was another , 625hp and 4156 lb take-off weight. 
For the P-43A weights were 5996 pounds empty, 7435 pounds loaded, and 8480 pounds maximum. Maybe this is light weight compared to later US fighters but is is right up there with most other 1939-1941 single engined fighters. The four .50 cal guns may be considered "light" by later US standards but in the summer/fall of 1941 it wasn't too bad, same as F2As and F4Fs.


----------



## woljags (Mar 16, 2011)

what about mig 3 or yak 3 both are overlooked but did a sterling job defending their country against better aircraft


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 17, 2011)

Neither is overlooked, and both were top performers. So, not for this poll.


----------



## muscogeemike (Apr 1, 2011)

The Finns didn’t really use the F2A, they used the export version the B-239 - much lighter and more nimble. 
I've read that Finnish Pilots claimed this plane (they named it the Sky Pearl) had the highest kill to lose ratio of any fighter they flew. They liked it so much they began to produce their own version.


----------

