# Worst mass produced, monoplane, single-engine, single-seat, retractable undercarriage fighter of WW2?



## Admiral Beez (Jun 1, 2020)

Which is the worst mass produced (>500 units), monoplane, single-engine, single-seat, retractable undercarriage fighter of WW2? By "mass" produced I'm setting a limit of at least 500 units, so no Vultee Vanguards and its <150 units. The Buffalo stands out, but the Finns did very well with theirs.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PFVA63 (Jun 1, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Which is the worst mass produced (>500 units), monoplane, single-engine, retractable undercarriage fighter of WW2? By "mass" produced I'm setting a limit of at least 500 units, so no Vultee Vanguards and its <150 units. The Buffalo stands out, but the Finns did very well with theirs.



Hi,
At 507 (or 509) units produced total for all variants, the B239/F2A-1 (54 units total - but only 44 units to Finland), F2A-2 (43 units), B339B (40 units ordered by Belgium with only 1 delivered to France, 6 offloaded in Martinique and the rest to the UK), B339C (72 units ordered by the Dutch East Indies [with 24 apparently having 1100hp engines and the remaining 48 with 1200hp engine])*, B339D (20 units [with 1000hp engines] ultimately diverted to Australia & USAAF)*, B339E (~165-170 to the UK/Commonwealth in SE Asia)**, and F2A-3 (108 units), also would only just barely makes your cut for inclusion.

Regards

Pat

* per Brewster Buffaloes for the Militaire Luchtvaart KNIL 
** per Brewster Buffalo Mk I

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 1, 2020)

PFVA63 said:


> At 507 (or 509) units produced total for all variants,.....only just barely makes your cut for inclusion.


True, but the Buffalo makes it by a tusk. 

But the 500 cut does exclude quite a few, such as many Italians, though mostly their superlative later models which wouldn't apply to this list of fails.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ssnider (Jun 1, 2020)

Has anyone actually read the article reviewed here? Brewster Buffalo: AAHS Article

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 1, 2020)

ssnider said:


> Has anyone actually read the article reviewed here? Brewster Buffalo: AAHS Article


Not me, but you won’t convince me that the Buffalo was the worst >500 fighter.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 1, 2020)

ssnider said:


> Has anyone actually read the article reviewed here? Brewster Buffalo: AAHS Article


 
I haven't but the quotes from it indicate that the author had some issues with historical accuracy. For example, the F2A-1 had one .3in and one .5in BMGs, which was considerably worse than the Gloster Sea Gladiator or Skua's 4 x .303BMGs with 600rpg. The F2A-1 LG was unable to cope with the weight increase when the armament was increased. The F2A-1 had 160USG fuel where the Skua had 195USG, although the Skua losses were not primarily from fuel starvation as the article suggests: 

_"Virtually all the Skuas were lost, many due to fuel starvation while searching for their ships in the horrible Norwegian weather." _

and if this was the case, it would have been worse for a single seat, long range fighter. Of course the article doesn't mention the Gladiator at all.


----------



## glennasher (Jun 1, 2020)

The Finns liked the Brewster, and the Russians liked the P-39, both candidates that could be considered, but I'd guess that the French and Italians had something worse. This is a pretty tough topic to really quantify.


----------



## cammerjeff (Jun 1, 2020)

My vote would go to the Morane-Saulnier MS 406, though it was agile it was slow at just over 300 mph, and lightly armed with just 1 drum fed 20mm cannon with 60 rounds (that was prone to jam) and two 7.5mm machine guns. 

But the Fiat G-50 & Block 151/152 (if you count them together they meet the 500 produced qualification.) would be near the top also.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 1, 2020)

According to Wikipedia the LaGG-3 was immensely unpopular with Soviet pilots.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 1, 2020)

When you say "worse" you need to define in what context. Worse combat record? Worse operational record? Worse operational readiness? Worse kill to loss ratio? Worse built? Worse flying characteristics?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 1, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> When you say "worse" you need to define in what context. Worse combat record? Worse operational record? Worse operational readiness? Worse kill to loss ratio? Worse built? Worse flying characteristics?


I suppose the worst aircraft you‘d want to go up in against some of the best aircraft of the same generation.


----------



## Greyman (Jun 1, 2020)

cammerjeff said:


> My vote would go to the Morane-Saulnier MS 406, though it was agile it was slow at just over 300 mph, and lightly armed with just 1 drum fed 20mm cannon with 60 rounds (that was prone to jam) and two 7.5mm machine guns.
> 
> But the Fiat G-50 & Block 151/152 (if you count them together they meet the 500 produced qualification.) would be near the top also.



Bloch MB.151/2 right up there as well.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 1, 2020)

Most of the aircraft listed so far was tried by the Finns. 
They bought 44 Brewster 239, 35 Fiat G.50, and 87 M.S. 406.
If the Morane-Saulnier was so bad, why did they buy so many ?

The only fighters they bought more of was the Fokker XXI, and BF 109.

Of course the Finns were desperate, they'd take anything that flew, and make it work.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jun 1, 2020)

tyrodtom said:


> If the Morane-Saulnier was so bad, why did they buy so many ?



Availability and cost, I assume.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 1, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> I suppose the worst aircraft you‘d want to go up in against some of the best aircraft of the same generation.


I wouldn't want to go up in the worse, I'd want to go up in what I would believe is going to bring me back alive.

There were many good pre war aircraft that were just obsolete at the start of the war. A perfect example of this is the I-16, Gloster Gladiator and the CR-42. At the same time you had aircraft like the Swordfish that was totally obsolete and had a better combat record than its predecessor.

Not a fighter but IMO the "worse" combat aircraft of WW2 was this...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 1, 2020)

Although a neat little fighter, if you want to talk combat record and maintainability...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 1, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> There were many good pre war aircraft that were just obsolete at the start of the war. A perfect example of this is the I-16, Gloster Gladiator and the CR-42.


That’s why I’ve started off with somewhat of an equalizer; monoplane, single-engine, single-seat, retractable undercarriage fighter. But there are still some once good, now obsolete aircraft in this category such as the Polikarpov I-16.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 1, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> That’s why I’ve started off with somewhat of an equalizer; monoplane, single-engine, single-seat, retractable undercarriage fighter. * But there are still some once good, now obsolete aircraft in this category such as the **Polikarpov I-16.*



So were they bad because they had bad flying characteristics, poor maintenance characteristics or just had the unfortunate fate to be pushed into the wrong war? A lot more to consider.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 2, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Which is the worst mass produced (>500 units), monoplane, single-engine, single-seat, retractable undercarriage fighter of WW2? By "mass" produced I'm setting a limit of at least 500 units, so no Vultee Vanguards and its <150 units. The Buffalo stands out, but the Finns did very well with theirs.


Beez the 500 in the wartime or counting production before and or after WW 2?


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 2, 2020)

Vincenzo said:


> Beez the 500 in the wartime or counting production before and or after WW 2?


Before, if it saw active combat service as opposed to being quickly withdrawn. Not, after, the war‘s done. I‘m thinking we should change it to 1,000 units as I sense there’s a lot of hair splitting.


----------



## NevadaK (Jun 2, 2020)

Well, if you would lower it to >300 units I would nominate the Me163 Komet.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 2, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> Well, if you would lower it to >300 units I would nominate the Me163 Komet.



More Me163s would be good for Allies...

So would the Bachem Natter

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 2, 2020)

Bachem Natter 

Doesn't have retracting landing gear


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 2, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Bachem Natter
> 
> Doesn't have retracting landing gear



After a quick check, it also had multiple engines =

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gottschs (Jun 2, 2020)

I vote for the I-16. Terrible gun platform and while fast it was hard to handle for the pilot


----------



## Spitlead (Jun 2, 2020)

ssnider said:


> Has anyone actually read the article reviewed here? Brewster Buffalo: AAHS Article


Thanks for sharing the article on the Buffalo. I did read it, and I agree with Admiral Beez, you won't convince me the Buffalo was the worst fighter in this category. Certainly, one could argue that the negative perception of the type was in part due to the very limited combat experience of its pilots. Both Germany and Japan had been involved in conflicts earlier and benefited significantly from that experience. Look at how Wildcat pilots improved within just 6 months from the start of the war and were able to close the gap with the Zero using the proper tactics and strengths of the Wildcat while leveraging the weaknesses of the Zero. The litmus test would be to have a head to head dogfight, with pilots of equal caliber, and no advantage going into the fight: The Buffalo vs the Zero. The Zero also benefited from production changes that continued to improve the type whereas the Buffalo was abandoned because the U.S. had so many other aircraft manufacturers producing all new types. I'm convinced there is another aircraft that is worse.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Spitlead (Jun 2, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> More Me163s would be good for Allies...
> 
> So would the Bachem Natter


The Me163 was brilliant. I just wouldn't want to fly in one. Gotta remember the Komet was a "point" design, strictly developed for intercepting bomber formations. Period.


----------



## NevadaK (Jun 2, 2020)

Spitlead said:


> The Me163 was brilliant. I just wouldn't want to fly in one. Gotta remember the Komet was a "point" design, strictly developed for intercepting bomber formations. Period.



There are no denying its technological accomplishments. Unfortunately, it also has a negative kill ratio and was extremely vulnerable towards the end of each flight. IIRC it also suffered from the slow firing cannon limiting its lethality during high speed passes.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Spitlead (Jun 2, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> There are no denying its technological accomplishments. Unfortunately, it also has a negative kill ratio and was extremely vulnerable towards the end of each flight. IIRC it also suffered from the slow firing cannon limiting its lethality during high speed passes.


Was not aware of the negative kill ratio, nor the slow firing 20mm cannons. I've always believed the Germans had very good machine guns and cannons. Certainly they'd gotten a lot of use in their other fighter aircraft. Did they use a different cannon in the Me163?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 2, 2020)

gottschs said:


> I vote for the I-16. Terrible gun platform and while fast it was hard to handle for the pilot



Depends who you talk to - Pilot reports state it was difficult to take off and land but made a good account of itself over Spain until the Bf109 came along and it held it's own during the Nomonhan Incident. Once it's flight characteristics were mastered, it was a good fighter for it's day. It was also one of the first, if not the first aircraft to achieve an aerial kill with a missile (unguided).


----------



## Spitlead (Jun 2, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> There are no denying its technological accomplishments. Unfortunately, it also has a negative kill ratio and was extremely vulnerable towards the end of each flight. IIRC it also suffered from the slow firing cannon limiting its lethality during high speed passes.


Nevadak, according to Wikipedia (and trust me, as one with a degree in military history Wikipedia is not the end all of sources) they are stating that the Me163 had between 9-18 allied kills against 10 losses. So, at worst the aircraft was had nearly a 1:1 kill ratio or better (depending on the source)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 2, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> There are no denying its technological accomplishments. Unfortunately, it also has a negative kill ratio and was extremely vulnerable towards the end of each flight. IIRC it also suffered from the slow firing cannon limiting its lethality during high speed passes.



The cannons were not that slow firing - 600 rd/min for one 30mm, 750-800 rd/min for one MK 151/20. Or, talk 10 rd/sec for a single MK 108; the Me 163 carried two cannons.


----------



## NevadaK (Jun 2, 2020)

Spitlead said:


> Was not aware of the negative kill ratio, nor the slow firing 20mm cannons. I've always believed the Germans had very good machine guns and cannons. Certainly they'd gotten a lot of use in their other fighter aircraft. Did they use a different cannon in the Me163?



Here is text I copied from Wikipedia, I have read same comments from other sources. This is just the easiest to grab:

_In service, the Me 163 turned out to be difficult to use against enemy aircraft. Its tremendous speed and climb rate meant a target was reached and passed in a matter of seconds. Although the Me 163 was a stable gun platform, it required excellent marksmanship to bring down an enemy bomber. The Kometwas equipped with two 30 mm (1.18 inch) MK 108 cannons which had a relatively low muzzle velocity of 540 meters per second (1,772 feet/sec), and were accurate only at short range, making it almost impossible to hit a slow moving bomber. Four or five hits were typically needed to take down a B-17.__[32]_

Numerous sources list the Comet as having achieved 9 or 10 kills versus 14 losses. The best researched appears to be:

*The Me 163B Komet, Development and Operational Experience*
Albert C. Piccirillo

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Jun 2, 2020)

Spitlead said:


> Nevadak, according to Wikipedia (and trust me, as one with a degree in military history Wikipedia is not the end all of sources) they are stating that the Me163 had between 9-18 allied kills against 10 losses. So, at worst the aircraft was had nearly a 1:1 kill ratio or better (depending on the source)
> 
> View attachment 583678



Greetings Spitlead, agreed it wasn't terribly upside down, but the source I just posted had it at 10K vs 14L

Thanks! Kk

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jun 2, 2020)

To be fair to the Me 163 -- what were the kill ratios of 109s and 190s performing the same mission in that timeframe?

I'd wager not too great.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Spitlead (Jun 2, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> The cannons were not that slow firing - 600 rd/min for one 30mm, 750-800 rd/min for one MK 151/20. Or, talk 10 rd/sec for a single MK 108; the Me 163 carried two cannons.


Perhaps the cannons were "slow" given the speed the aircraft was flying. It's all relative. If I'm not mistaken, some of the early jets actually ran into their own bullets when firing their guns. Can't recall the aircraft (F7U Cutlass?). The Me163 was definitely in the speed class with some of the early jets.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 2, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> Here is text I copied from Wikipedia, I have read same comments from other sources. This is just the easiest to grab:
> 
> _In service, the Me 163 turned out to be difficult to use against enemy aircraft. Its tremendous speed and climb rate meant a target was reached and passed in a matter of seconds. Although the Me 163 was a stable gun platform, it required excellent marksmanship to bring down an enemy bomber. The Kometwas equipped with two 30 mm (1.18 inch) MK 108 cannons which had a relatively low muzzle velocity of 540 meters per second (1,772 feet/sec), and were accurate only at short range, making it almost impossible to hit a slow moving bomber. Four or five hits were typically needed to take down a B-17.__[32]_





Spitlead said:


> Perhaps the cannons were "slow" given the speed the aircraft was flying. It's all relative.



Somehow the German pilots have had no problem to kill, en masse, the slow moving Welligtons with MG FF that fired at 570 m/s, or the bit faster and much smaller Battles or Pz.630s, or the fast moving and small fighters in 1939-40 with same weapon, yet they were unable to make hits on a huge & slow B-17 with MK 108. Japanese pilots have made a literal killing with their Type 99-1 that have had similar low-ish MV.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 2, 2020)

You have a couple of things going on with the MK 108 cannon, The rate of fire wasn't really that bad, it just wasn't anything above average. However in the Me 163 you had a shorter_ *time* of engagement. _Now we go back to the velocity, is was about the slowest but then it is a 30mm shell so velocity doesn't fall off quite as bad as some 20mm ( I repeat, SOME). However the speed of the Me 163 was such that the pilot only had a short period of time to fire between when he got into effective range and and when he had to pull up or otherwise maneuver the plane to avoid a collision. A higher velocity gun would have allowed firing sooner and thus extended firing time, a faster firing gun would have allowed more shells to be fired in the same period of time, increasing the chances or number of hits. 

Just for illustrations sake, I am making up numbers here, you have the Me 163 doing 500mph and the prop plane doing 400mph. The rocket plane on a stationary target has 25% less firing time with the same gun, adjust as you see fit for tail chase, nose attack, attack from the side. Rocket plane with it's higher speed may have to pull the guns off target sooner than the prop plane further shorting the firing time. Like I said. shorter_ *time* of engagement_

The Gun was destructive, it was available, it just might not have been the best possible choice for the Me 163, although it may have been the best choice of what the germans had available. 

As for the 109E vs the 1940 bombers? 
Slower fighter may mean a longer time of engagment and/or a longer time to line up the shot/firing opportunity.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
4 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## glennasher (Jun 2, 2020)

Spitlead said:


> Perhaps the cannons were "slow" given the speed the aircraft was flying. It's all relative. If I'm not mistaken, some of the early jets actually ran into their own bullets when firing their guns. Can't recall the aircraft (F7U Cutlass?). The Me163 was definitely in the speed class with some of the early jets.




It wasn't just early jets, P-47s, P-51 and Corsairs also shot themselves down when shooting at trains and other ground targets, they'd fly into the bullets ricocheting off the ground and "ooops" get some holes in their shiny aircraft. It was probably the same with Tempests and Typhoons, any of the higher performance a/c of the day.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 2, 2020)

I beleive the jet that shot itself down was a Grumman F11 Tiger. 

From WIki so take it for what it is.

"The F-11 Tiger is noted for being the first jet aircraft to shoot itself down.[3] On 21 September 1956, during a test-firing of its 20 mm (0.79 in) cannons, pilot Tom Attridge fired two bursts midway through a shallow dive. As the trajectory of the cannon rounds decayed, they ultimately crossed paths with the Tiger as it continued its descent, disabling it and forcing Attridge to crash-land the aircraft; he survived. "

Some accounts say the Tiger was going supersonic at some point during this time.

As for WW II aircraft shooting themselves down? This seems rather far fetched. At least for US and British planes using 20mm cannon and .50 cal machine guns. 
The MV for those guns were over 1900mph and while the shells do slow down they are still going to be going at supersonic speeds over 1000yds from where they were fired. 
It is going to take a truly extraordinary set of circumstances for a prop driven airplane to catch up to it's own shells.


----------



## NevadaK (Jun 2, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> You have a couple of things going on with the MK 108 cannon, The rate of fire wasn't really that bad, it just wasn't anything above average. However in the Me 163 you had a shorter_ *time* of engagement. _Now we go back to the velocity, is was about the slowest but then it is a 30mm shell so velocity doesn't fall off quite as bad as some 20mm ( I repeat, SOME). However the speed of the Me 163 was such that the pilot only had a short period of time to fire between when he got into effective range and and when he had to pull up or otherwise maneuver the plane to avoid a collision. A higher velocity gun would have allowed firing sooner and thus extended firing time, a faster firing gun would have allowed more shells to be fired in the same period of time, increasing the chances or number of hits.
> 
> Just for illustrations sake, I am making up numbers here, you have the Me 163 doing 500mph and the prop plane doing 400mph. The rocket plane on a stationary target has 25% less firing time with the same gun, adjust as you see fit for tail chase, nose attack, attack from the side. Rocket plane with it's higher speed may have to pull the guns off target sooner than the prop plane further shorting the firing time. Like I said. shorter_ *time* of engagement_
> 
> ...



One thing that also caught my attention was the reference to lack of accuracy associated with MK 108. I did find this link which referenced a large arc associated with the shells.

Rheinmetall-Borsig MK 108 30mm cannon Luft '46 entry

As well as this link

Mk 108 Cannon

Which gives better detail to the shell drop and how close an aircraft needed to be accurate.

The second article states that an aircraft needed to be within 200 - 300 meters to be effective. For an aircraft traveling at 800 Kph +/- that leaves very little shooting time. 

Kk

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jun 2, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> Somehow the German pilots have had no problem to kill, en masse, the slow moving Welligtons with MG FF that fired at 570 m/s, or the bit faster and much smaller Battles or Pz.630s, or the fast moving and small fighters in 1939-40 with same weapon, yet they were unable to make hits on a huge & slow B-17 with MK 108. Japanese pilots have made a literal killing with their Type 99-1 that have had similar low-ish MV.


None of those other planes had hordes of 50 caliber machine guns spitting lead at them. A single B17 was no slouch in self defense but when your attacking a box formation and have 2 dozen guys shooting at you at once (whether they can actually hit you or not) you will tend to not close the range like you would on a Wellington


----------



## pinsog (Jun 2, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I wouldn't want to go up in the worse, I'd want to go up in what I would believe is going to bring me back alive.
> 
> There were many good pre war aircraft that were just obsolete at the start of the war. A perfect example of this is the I-16, Gloster Gladiator and the CR-42. At the same time you had aircraft like the Swordfish that was totally obsolete and had a better combat record than its predecessor.
> 
> ...


What aircraft is that?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 2, 2020)

pinsog said:


> What aircraft is that?



Breda 88


----------



## wuzak (Jun 2, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> Well, if you would lower it to >300 units I would nominate the Me163 Komet.





swampyankee said:


> More Me163s would be good for Allies...
> 
> So would the Bachem Natter





Shortround6 said:


> Bachem Natter
> 
> Doesn't have retracting landing gear



Did the Me 163 have retractable landing gear?


----------



## BiffF15 (Jun 2, 2020)

wuzak said:


> Did the Me 163 have retractable landing gear?




The gear were jettisoned just after take off, and the aircraft landed on skids.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 2, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> The gear were jettisoned just after take off, and the aircraft landed on skids.



I know that, but does that count as retractable undercarriage?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 2, 2020)

wuzak said:


> I know that, but does that count as retractable undercarriage?


Well, the skid retracted, or perhaps we should say it extended?


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 2, 2020)

Does landing gear mean it has to be wheels ? 
There's been several aircraft that didn't use wheels to land on, and whatever they used retracted too.
The Me 163 had a extendable skid that it landed on.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 2, 2020)

ssnider said:


> Has anyone actually read the article reviewed here? Brewster Buffalo: AAHS Article


I just did. Thanks for the link.


----------



## Koopernic (Jun 2, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> Well, if you would lower it to >300 units I would nominate the Me163 Komet.



The Me 163 didn't have a retractable undercarriage. The Me 163B was a trial combat aircraft built in a small batch, it had been designed to intercept reconnaissance aircraft not short down massed bomber formations. It's target should have been Mosquito's and F5 (recon P38) . The intention was always to improve the aircraft after lessons learned.

The lessons learned from flying combat operations were to be applied to an improved version.

Problem 1: Endurance was not enough. It was found that the Me 163B could easily intercept a bomber formation but once there needed a few more minutes time to form up into an attack. The first solution to this was to have been replacing the HWK *509 A *series rocket motor with the* 509 B* series rocket motor. This had a second sustained rocket of 28% (300kP) of the thrust of the main rocket chamber (1600kP), the two rockets were integrated with common controls, pumps and supply lines so there was not much of a size increase. The sustainer or cruise motor had half the hydrogen peroxide consumption at cruise setting so would have substantially increased range.

A second solution was to enlarge the Me 163 to carry more fuel. This lead to the Me 163C (simply a scaled up Me 163 with a pressurised bubble canopy cockpit) and the competing Ju 248/Me 163D which added room for more fuel and provided a retractable undercarriage.

Problem 2: Not enough fire power. The high closing speed meant that two Mk 108 could not fire enough rounds to get in a lethal number of hits. The solution was to go from 2 guns to 4 on the Me 163C or install faster firing versions of the Mk 108 or MK213/30 revolver canon on the Me 163D/Ju 248

Problem 3: The skid could not absorb high enough sink rates on to grass fields and it took a while to clear the aircraft from the field This injured pilots backs and sometimes over turned the aircraft. The solution was to improve the skid on the Me 163C and fit a retractable undercarriage to the Me 163D/ Ju 248

Problem 4: the aircraft could be expected to climb to 25,000 to 30,000ft in a minute causing 'bends' issues for the pilots. The solution was to breath oxygen to clear the blood of nitrogen.
The new Me 163 would add presurisation.

Problem 5/Myth. The Me 163 fuel/oxidiser would dissolve pilots on a crash. This happened once but the aircraft had crashed into a tower after a go around caused by a engine failure immediately after take-off. It might have been as lethal as a conventional aircraft. Me 163 pilots can and did survive over turned aircraft in a crash landing (when must fuel was gone anyway).

So an Me 163 coming back with 1 twice the fire power and 2 nearly twice the endurance range and a retractable or improved undercarriage for greater safety would likely have worked at shooting down bombers efficiently. The endurance of the Me 163 was not bad when we consider that it took only a minute or so to get to the bombers instead of 15-20 due to its high climb rate.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 2, 2020)

tyrodtom said:


> Does landing gear mean it has to be wheels ?
> There's been several aircraft that didn't use wheels to land on, and whatever they used retracted too.
> The Me 163 had a extendable skid that it landed on.



No, but it might be retractable undercarriage if the undercarriage they land on is the same that they take-off with.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 3, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> That’s why I’ve started off with somewhat of an equalizer; monoplane, single-engine, single-seat, retractable undercarriage fighter. But there are still some once good, now obsolete aircraft in this category such as the Polikarpov I-16.


Not so, in the first 6 months of operation Barbarossa, mixed groups of MiG-3s and I-16s operated with the later scoring the most kills. My candidate would be the LAGG-3.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## glennasher (Jun 3, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> I beleive the jet that shot itself down was a Grumman F11 Tiger.
> 
> From WIki so take it for what it is.
> 
> ...




I've read about it someplace, happening mostly to 9thAF pilots. I think it depended a lot on the angle of attack, and naturally, the speed. I have heard similar things about strafing watercraft in the Pacific, too. I thought it was a bit odd, too, but that's what the pilots were claiming.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 3, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> Not so, in the first 6 months of operation Barbarossa, mixed groups of MiG-3s and I-16s operated with the later scoring the most kills. My candidate would be the LAGG-3.


 
Simple comparisons like this can be misleading, it could very well be true that the I-16s scored more kills, but it ignores two things. 
Many of the units involved were transitioning over from the I-16s to the Migs when the Invasion started, without knowing how many planes of each type were available when it becomes hard to asses the results. 
Which is going to give better results, a plane the majority of the pilots had been flying for a long time or a plane that a pilot only had a few hours on? 
The Mig was also not an easy plane to fly, in fact it had some of the bad habits of the I-16 and good I-16 pilots made an easier trasition to the Mig 3 than pilots of other aircraft (the biplanes). Accounts don't say how hard it was for average or poor I-16 pilots.

Sometimes you have to read between the lines or look for what is NOT said.


----------



## NevadaK (Jun 3, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Well, the skid retracted, or perhaps we should say it extended?



the skid was extended during takeoff with a jettison able two wheel dolly attached. After lift off the plane leveled off fairly low to gain speed, the dolly was ejected and the skid retracted. The skid was extended again for landing.

I think that counts as retractable gear.


----------



## RW Mk. III (Jun 3, 2020)

glennasher said:


> I've read about it someplace, happening mostly to 9thAF pilots. I think it depended a lot on the angle of attack, and naturally, the speed. I have heard similar things about strafing watercraft in the Pacific, too. I thought it was a bit odd, too, but that's what the pilots were claiming.


How could they possibly discern between ground fire and their own bouncing back up and hitting them somehow? It's a tough one to believe given the physics of it. If anything it seems like a convenient way to explain away a wingman accidentally hitting his leader.

Pilots claimed a lot of stuff tbh... the fog of war and the lens of memory makes for some interesting reports.


----------



## RW Mk. III (Jun 3, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> the skid was extended during takeoff with a jettison able two wheel dolly attached. After lift off the plane leveled off fairly low to gain speed, the dolly was ejected and the skid retracted. The skid was extended again for landing.
> 
> I think that counts as retractable gear.


Personally I would think that if the aircraft leaves any component of the undercarriage that it cannot take off without behind, it would be "partially retractable undercarriage," or semi-jettisoned undercart or somewhere in there.

But I guess we're saying --landing gear-- aren't we? In which case if could take off from the back of a galloping horse I suppose as that would just be the --takeoff gear--?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 3, 2020)

wuzak said:


> Did the Me 163 have retractable landing gear?



It took off from a trolley and landed on a retractable skid. Occassionally, the pilot's back was broken during landing. Also, if there was fuel and oxidizer left, if _anything_ went wrong with the landing, it could leak onto the pilot and dissolve their skin.

Even if nothing went wrong, the Me163 couldn't taxi (it was a glider) and had to wait for a vehicle to tow it off the runway. I'm sure this was a prized assignment for _Luftwaffe _ground crew: collecting a glider with remnants of hypergolic, corrosive, toxic, and generally unpleasant propellants while Allied fighters were strafing the field.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 3, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> It took off from a trolley and landed on a retractable skid. Occassionally, the pilot's back was broken during landing. Also, if there was fuel and oxidizer left, if _anything_ went wrong with the landing, it could leak onto the pilot and dissolve their skin.
> 
> Even if nothing went wrong, the Me163 couldn't taxi (it was a glider) and had to wait for a vehicle to tow it off the runway. I'm sure this was a prized assignment for _Luftwaffe _ground crew: collecting a glider with remnants of hypergolic, corrosive, toxic, and generally unpleasant propellants while Allied fighters were strafing the field.



The corrosive nature of the fuel and oxidizer wasn't the only issue. It was inevitable that some small amount of each component would remain in the tanks/pipes at the end of the sortie. Landing damage risked inadvertent mixing of the 2 chemicals which would then spontaneously combust. 

It must have been terrifying for a pilot who hurt his back during landing, knowing he's sitting in a mostly wooden airframe, to then see fire break out with often explosive ferocity.


----------



## RW Mk. III (Jun 3, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> It took off from a trolley and landed on a retractable skid. Occassionally, the pilot's back was broken during landing. Also, if there was fuel and oxidizer left, if _anything_ went wrong with the landing, it could leak onto the pilot and dissolve their skin.
> 
> Even if nothing went wrong, the Me163 couldn't taxi (it was a glider) and had to wait for a vehicle to tow it off the runway. I'm sure this was a prized assignment for _Luftwaffe _ground crew: collecting a glider with remnants of hypergolic, corrosive, toxic, and generally unpleasant propellants while Allied fighters were strafing the field.


To further this I think it's worth pointing out that hypergolic fuel is a mad idea in a combat scenario full stop. Admittedly the German regime was quite mad so there you have it. Years later the dangers and drawbacks of hypergolics were considered just about acceptable in ballistic missiles that sat in silos peacefully awaiting their one and only use, until it was realized that it was still a bad idea. And even then there were some terrible accidents, read about the Damascus Titan explosion, a single socket dropped caused it... 

Me163 was very impressive, and kinda-sorta effective had it been developed further? But it's heavily reliant on an_ extreme disregard_ for acceptable losses, and pilot and aircrew safety. A typical wunderwaffe, willfully blind of the cost-benefit analysis end of technological warfare. Of all the things the LW was short of, pilots was possibly the worst deficiency. In that light, the Me163 was doubly insane.

I would point out that although incidents of pilots being melted (to one degree or another) may be Apocryphal, they were extremely possible, if not probable if the thing had stayed in use. Even with fuel depleted it takes a small amount of this stuff to burn tissue, and the fumes from the reaction are also toxic. If cross-contamination of the fuel tanks occured, even in a fuel-depleted state there would be more than enough left to blow the thing up.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 3, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> The corrosive nature of the fuel and oxidizer wasn't the only issue. It was inevitable that some small amount of each component would remain in the tanks/pipes at the end of the sortie. Landing damage risked inadvertent mixing of the 2 chemicals which would then spontaneously combust.
> 
> It must have been terrifying for a pilot who hurt his back during landing, knowing he's sitting in a mostly wooden airframe, to then see fire break out with often explosive ferocity.



Interestingly, one book (the first version of _The World's Worst Aircraft_) had a _Luftwaffe _pilot claim the Me163 had some of the best in-flight handling of any German fighter.


----------



## TheMadPenguin (Jun 3, 2020)

The Me 163 fuel/oxidizer was hydrazine-methanol and Hi-Test hydrogen peroxide.
They were hypergolic (splash together and you get instant flame/blast)
Perhaps I will be indulged, or at least forgiven, in thinking these were both hypergolic with pilots as well as with each other.


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 3, 2020)

TheMadPenguin said:


> The Me 163 fuel/oxidizer was hydrazine-methanol and Hi-Test hydrogen peroxide.
> They were hypergolic (splash together and you get instant flame/blast)
> Perhaps I will be indulged, or at least forgiven, in thinking these were both hypergolic with pilots as well as with each other.



They weren't hypergolic with pilots; that would be chlorine trifluoride (see Lowe, Derek, "Sand won't save you this time", Sand Won't Save You This Time). ClF3 sort of defines "scary chemical." The nazis thought of using it for incendiary devices, but they decided it was too unsafe for their troops to handle.

Hydrazine and methanol are both toxic; one of the reasons that hydrazine has gotten so expensive is the costs of disposal. Several space agencies are considering reverting to hydrogen peroxide, which is much safer to handle. Concentrated hydrogen peroxide isn't toxic, but a) its composition is catalyzed by an enzyme, catalase, in human blood and b) it's a strong oxidizing agent. It's used at 30% concentration as biocide in food preparation plants as it destroys cell walls and oxidizes DNA.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jun 3, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> They weren't hypergolic with pilots; that would be chlorine trifluoride (see Lowe, Derek, "Sand won't save you this time", Sand Won't Save You This Time). ClF3 sort of defines "scary chemical." The nazis thought of using it for incendiary devices, but they decided it was too unsafe for their troops to handle.
> 
> Hydrazine and methanol are both toxic; one of the reasons that hydrazine has gotten so expensive is the costs of disposal. Several space agencies are considering reverting to hydrogen peroxide, which is much safer to handle. Concentrated hydrogen peroxide isn't toxic, but a) its composition is catalyzed by an enzyme, catalase, in human blood and b) it's a strong oxidizing agent. It's used at 30% concentration as biocide in food preparation plants as it destroys cell walls and oxidizes DNA.


The following video contains a demonstration of the danger of the fuel at the 2.40 mark:

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## cherry blossom (Jun 3, 2020)

As it is mentioned in "Sand won't save you this time", can I recommend "Ignition! An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants" by John D. Clark which is available free at Ignition!: An informal history of liquid rocket propellants : John D. Clark : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive.


----------



## Hardlydank (Jun 3, 2020)

Do early model I-16s qualify for this list? They had worse performance than the Buffalo and G.50 but they were about 5 years old by Barbarossa so idk if they are really "of WW2" like the title says.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## cherry blossom (Jun 3, 2020)

If we are willing to reduce the criterion to 250 aircraft built, the Commonwealth Boomerang might be a contender as the "fighter" with the worse performance of aircraft introduced in 1943 or later. However, the Boomerang did have a useful career as a ground attack aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RW Mk. III (Jun 3, 2020)

I think this is going to get very circular. Nothing sufficiently bad as to get anything close to consensus would have been made in large enough numbers. Basically Lagg3, Buffalo, P39, Ms406, throw a dart at those? Am I missing any?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 3, 2020)

The problem with this discussion is the requirement that 500 aircraft had to be produced to make the list.
Most of the real junk produced was outed as junk way before 500 aircraft got produced. 
Nobody was brain dead enough to waste that much resources on something that plainly didn't meet the requirements.

Except for the 3rd Reich, of course.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 3, 2020)

tyrodtom said:


> The problem with this discussion is the requirement that 500 aircraft had to be produced to make the list.
> Most of the real junk produced was outed as junk way before 500 aircraft got produced.
> Nobody was brain dead enough to waste that much resources on something that plainly didn't meet the requirements.
> 
> Except for the 3rd Reich, of course.


Well the Luftwaffe reckoned they destroyed half the LaGG-3s produced as opposed to only a quarter of all Spitfires. So I'll go with the Luftwaffe, the LaGG-3.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RW Mk. III (Jun 3, 2020)

RW Mk. III said:


> I think this is going to get very circular. Nothing sufficiently bad as to get anything close to consensus would have been made in large enough numbers. Basically Lagg3, Buffalo, P39, Ms406, throw a dart at those? Am I missing any?





Kevin J said:


> Well the Luftwaffe reckoned they destroyed half the LaGG-3s produced as opposed to only a quarter of all Spitfires. So I'll go with the Luftwaffe, the LaGG-3.


The Luftwaffe reckoned they destroyed the RAF in August 1940 so I would feel more comfortable with Soviet statistics on the Lagg3 losses.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 3, 2020)

RW Mk. III said:


> The Luftwaffe reckoned they destroyed the RAF in August 1940 so I would feel more comfortable with Soviet statistics on the Lagg3 losses.


BoB, July to October 1940. RAF starts with 1000 Hurricanes and Spitfires, one third in reserve. Production: Spitfire, 150 pcm, 600 total; Hurricane, 300 pcm, total, 1200. RAF admitted 915 losses IIRC, Luftwaffe claimed 1200 Spitfires, 2000 Hurricanes. I think everyone's lying about both actual losses and actual victories.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 3, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> BoB, July to October 1940. RAF starts with 1000 Hurricanes and Spitfires, one third in reserve. Production: Spitfire, 150 pcm, 600 total; Hurricane, 300 pcm, total, 1200. RAF admitted 915 losses IIRC, Luftwaffe claimed 1200 Spitfires, 2000 Hurricanes. I think everyone's lying about both actual losses and actual victories.



What part of the RAF loss number is a lie?


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 3, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> What part of the RAF loss number is a lie?


Hurricanes you could fix easily even re-manufacture, and there were a lot of bent Spitfire wings and fuselages. Planes wore out just like pilots did. Same number of Spitfires and Hurricanes at end of BoB as at start so overall losses including combat must have been 600 Spitfires and 1200 Hurricanes not the officially recorded 915 in combat. After the BoB, front line Spitfire squadrons upgraded to the Mk II, the remainder of the 1650 Mk Is built went to OTUs. The Hurricanes didn't get replaced in Fighter Command until the end of 1941. Here, have a look at this: http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index....-war&catid=48:production-statistics&Itemid=61 . Generally speaking, a squadron in the front line got thru 50 fighters in a 6 month period.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 3, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> Hurricanes you could fix easily even re-manufacture, and there were a lot of bent Spitfire wings and fuselages. Planes wore out just like pilots did. Same number of Spitfires and Hurricanes at end of BoB as at start so overall losses including combat must have been 600 Spitfires and 1200 Hurricanes not the officially recorded 915 in combat. After the BoB, front line Spitfire squadrons upgraded to the Mk II, the remainder of the 1650 Mk Is built went to OTUs. The Hurricanes didn't get replaced in Fighter Command until the end of 1941. Here, have a look at this: http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index....-war&catid=48:production-statistics&Itemid=61 . Generally speaking, a squadron in the front line got thru 50 fighters in a 6 month period.



What you're identifying isnt a lie. The RAF claimed 915 losses due to combat. Clearly there will be other non-combat losses. I'm unaware of any military force that included all losses in calculations. For example, the 8th AF daylight raids cited losses as a direct result of combat for aircraft engaged in the raid. They didn't count training losses that happened in the UK while the raid was happening (why would you? It's nonsensical).


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 3, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> What you're identifying isnt a lie. The RAF claimed 915 losses due to combat. Clearly there will be other non-combat losses. I'm unaware of any military force that included all losses in calculations. For example, the 8th AF daylight raids cited losses as a direct result of combat for aircraft engaged in the raid. They didn't count training losses that happened in the UK while the raid was happening (why would you? It's nonsensical).


Because its more realistic. So your opponent over claims by 100 maybe 200 %, one's own losses are double overall because of non operational reasons.


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 3, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> Because its more realistic. So your opponent over claims by 100 maybe 200 %, one's own losses are double overall because of non operational reasons.



The planners know the total losses; they report them differently because they mean different things to the populace at large and to the pilots and aircrew. What were the non-combat losses of the Luftwaffe?


----------



## wuzak (Jun 4, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> Hurricanes you could fix easily even re-manufacture, and there were a lot of bent Spitfire wings and fuselages.



Obviously because the Spitfire was lightly constructed and weak.

Whereas the mighty Hurricane could be rebuilt by a teenager with a bicycle and some sheets?




Kevin J said:


> After the BoB, front line Spitfire squadrons upgraded to the Mk II, the remainder of the 1650 Mk Is built went to OTUs. The Hurricanes didn't get replaced in Fighter Command until the end of 1941. Here, have a look at this: http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index....-war&catid=48:production-statistics&Itemid=61 . Generally speaking, a squadron in the front line got thru 50 fighters in a 6 month period.



So Spitfire squadrons in the front line upgraded to the latest model and Hurricane squadrons didn't until the end of 1941? What of the Hurricane II, which was in production before the end of 1940?

I believe that the Spitfire II was being delivered to operational squadrons during the BoB. 

Or do you mean that the Hurricane wasn't replaced by Typhoons and Spitfires until after 1941? Which is a totally different argument.

And how is the production chart support your argument (whatever that is)?


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 4, 2020)

wuzak said:


> Obviously because the Spitfire was lightly constructed and weak.
> 
> Whereas the mighty Hurricane could be rebuilt by a teenager with a bicycle and some sheets?
> 
> ...


Generally speaking, Spitfires needed to be returned to the maintenance units for repairs, Hurricanes could be repaired at Squadron level. 
Small numbers of Hurricane IIs and Spitfire IIs were operational in the Bob. There's not a lot of performance difference between them.
IDK what we're arguing about here, do you?


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 4, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> Because its more realistic. So your opponent over claims by 100 maybe 200 %, one's own losses are double overall because of non operational reasons.



You need to measure multiple things during a campaign. From a logistic perspective, you absolutely need to measure total losses to ensure that replacements can keep pace with overall wastage. However, that does not give you any indication of how you're doing on the field of battle. Kill/loss comparisons are a rather blunt tool to do that but it's easy to understand and, during the Battle of Britain, helped keep the population engaged in fighting that, although right over their heads, they couldn't really see.

I still take issue with your use of the term "lie" in this discussion. Overclaiming was rampant on all sides during WW2 but that doesn't mean everyone was lying. Similarly, the use of combat losses as part of a kill/loss analysis is a reasonable way to measure operational success but it doesn't mean that the British Government or the RAF was lying.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 4, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> You need to measure multiple things during a campaign. From a logistic perspective, you absolutely need to measure total losses to ensure that replacements can keep pace with overall wastage. However, that does not give you any indication of how you're doing on the field of battle. Kill/loss comparisons are a rather blunt tool to do that but it's easy to understand and, during the Battle of Britain, helped keep the population engaged in fighting that, although right over their heads, they couldn't really see.
> 
> I still take issue with your use of the term "lie" in this discussion. Overclaiming was rampant on all sides during WW2 but that doesn't mean everyone was lying. Similarly, the use of combat losses as part of a kill/loss analysis is a reasonable way to measure operational success but it doesn't mean that the British Government or the RAF was lying.


Being economical with the truth maybe a better way of describing the situation. LOL. Think about this one. For the number of aircraft 'used up', the Hurricane destroyed 10% more enemy aircraft than the Spitfire and cost 10% less to build, so naturally the Air Ministry would want to put the Merlin XX in it rather than the Spitfire.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 4, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> Being economical with the truth maybe a better way of describing the situation. LOL. Think about this one. For the number of aircraft 'used up', the Hurricane destroyed 10% more enemy aircraft than the Spitfire and cost 10% less to build, so naturally the Air Ministry would want to put the Merlin XX in it rather than the Spitfire.



Truth for whom? The British people really didn't care about the complexities of aircraft production keeping pace with losses, or even whether the Mk II Scruggs Wonderplane should be introduced in preference to the MkIII Hot Air Balloon. They only cared if Britain was winning the battle...and that was measured by combat kills/losses. 

Again, the RAF knew exactly what its losses were, as well as the capacity of the aircraft industry to replace those losses. It was also keenly aware of performance disparities between the RAF fighters and those of the Luftwaffe. While I'm not suggesting every decision was right, at least it was based on the knowledge then available and, while propaganda certainly played a part in the war, you can only stretch the truth so far. If RAF losses had greatly increased to unsustainable levels, it would have been visible in other metrics (e.g. aircraft factories unable to keep up with supply, redoubling of recruitment efforts for pilots and/or lowering of medical standards etc).

I'm really struggling to understand the point you're trying to make regarding the Merlin XX. Retooling a factory to build an entirely different type of aircraft is a long and painful process, and it massively disrupts the logistics tail supporting the front line force. Eking more performance out of an existing in-service type is often better than the disruption caused by changing production over to another type. As Stalin is often reported to have said, "Quantity has a quality of its own."

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Jun 4, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> Interestingly, one book (the first version of _The World's Worst Aircraft_) had a _Luftwaffe _pilot claim the Me163 had some of the best in-flight handling of any German fighter.


I've come across a couple references to Eric Brown flying the Me 163. Here is the wikipedia text:

_Captain Eric Brown RN, Chief Naval Test Pilot and commanding officer of the Captured Enemy Aircraft Flight, who tested the Me 163 at the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) at Farnborough, said, "The Me 163 was an aeroplane that you could not afford to just step into the aircraft and say 'You know, I'm going to fly it to the limit.' You had very much to familiarise yourself with it because it was state-of-the-art and the technology used."[56] Acting unofficially, after a spate of accidents involving Allied personnel flying captured German aircraft resulted in official disapproval of such flights, Brown was determined to fly a powered Komet. On around 17 May 1945, he flew an Me 163B at Husum with the help of a cooperative German ground crew, after initial towed flights in an Me 163A to familiarise himself with the handling.[citation needed]
The day before the flight, Brown and his ground crew had performed an engine run on the chosen Me 163B to ensure that everything was running correctly, the German crew being apprehensive should an accident befall Brown, until being given a disclaimer signed by him to the effect that they were acting under his orders. On the rocket-powered "scharfer-start" takeoff the next day, after dropping the takeoff dolly and retracting the skid, Brown later described the resultant climb as "like being in charge of a runaway train", the aircraft reaching 32,000 ft (9.76 km) altitude in 2 minutes, 45 seconds. During the flight, while practicing attacking passes at an imaginary bomber, he was surprised at how well the Komet accelerated in the dive with the engine shut down. When the flight was over Brown had no problems on the approach to the airfield, apart from the rather restricted view from the cockpit due to the flat angle of glide, the aircraft touching down at 200 km/h (120 mph). Once down safely, Brown and his much-relieved ground crew celebrated with a drink.[57]
Beyond Brown's unauthorised flight, the British never tested the Me 163 under power themselves; due to the danger of its hypergolic propellants it was only flown unpowered. Brown himself piloted RAE's Komet VF241 on a number of occasions, the rocket motor being replaced with test instrumentation. When interviewed for a 1990s television programme, Brown said he had flown five tailless aircraft (which did not include the pair of American Northrop X-4s) in his career (including the British de Havilland DH 108). Referring to the Komet, he said "this is the only one that had good flight characteristics"; he called the other four "killers".__[58]_

and this:

_The aircraft was remarkably agile and docile to fly at high speed. According to Rudolf Opitz, chief test pilot of the Me 163, it could "fly circles around any other fighter of its time"._

I haven't come across any comments that the Me 163 was a bad airplane to fly. My thought on what makes a good candidate for this thread have to do with the inherent risks of the power plant and fuels, the limited combat ability of the aircraft, and combat vulnerability during landing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## taly01 (Jun 4, 2020)

Blackburn Roc/Skua is close to 500 units. Apparently Skua was a multi-role carrier fighter-bomber with 4x.303 in wings, and Roc a fighter with 4x.303 in turret ala Defiant. The *top* speed of both is given at 225mph which is pretty woeful even in 1940 which is why I chose it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 4, 2020)

taly01 said:


> Blackburn Roc/Skua is close to 500 units. Apparently Skua was a multi-role carrier fighter-bomber with 4x.303 in wings, and Roc a fighter with 4x.303 in turret ala Defiant. The *top* speed of both is given at 225mph which is pretty woeful even in 1940 which is why I chose it.



But neither the Skua nor the Roc are single-seat...which is one of the criteria in the OP.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Csch605 (Jun 4, 2020)

PFVA63 said:


> Hi,
> At 507 (or 509) units produced total for all variants, the B239/F2A-1 (54 units total - but only 44 units to Finland), F2A-2 (43 units), B339B (40 units ordered by Belgium with only 1 delivered to France, 6 offloaded in Martinique and the rest to the UK), B339C (72 units ordered by the Dutch East Indies [with 24 apparently having 1100hp engines and the remaining 48 with 1200hp engine])*, B339D (20 units [with 1000hp engines] ultimately diverted to Australia & USAAF)*, B339E (~165-170 to the UK/Commonwealth in SE Asia)**, and F2A-3 (108 units), also would only just barely makes your cut for inclusion.
> 
> Regards
> ...


If I had choice between having Buffalo's or no aircover at all I will take the Buffalo's anytime. But the Russian I16 with 4 .30 calibers, 335 max range, 291 mph top speed when brand new and no hours on the motor. 1 to 2 kill ratio now that is 2 lost for each kill. That is the worst fighter of ww2 to me


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 4, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> Truth for whom? The British people really didn't care about the complexities of aircraft production keeping pace with losses, or even whether the Mk II Scruggs Wonderplane should be introduced in preference to the MkIII Hot Air Balloon. They only cared if Britain was winning the battle...and that was measured by combat kills/losses.
> 
> Again, the RAF knew exactly what its losses were, as well as the capacity of the aircraft industry to replace those losses. It was also keenly aware of performance disparities between the RAF fighters and those of the Luftwaffe. While I'm not suggesting every decision was right, at least it was based on the knowledge then available and, while propaganda certainly played a part in the war, you can only stretch the truth so far. If RAF losses had greatly increased to unsustainable levels, it would have been visible in other metrics (e.g. aircraft factories unable to keep up with supply, redoubling of recruitment efforts for pilots and/or lowering of medical standards etc).
> 
> I'm really struggling to understand the point you're trying to make regarding the Merlin XX. Retooling a factory to build an entirely different type of aircraft is a long and painful process, and it massively disrupts the logistics tail supporting the front line force. Eking more performance out of an existing in-service type is often better than the disruption caused by changing production over to another type. As Stalin is often reported to have said, "Quantity has a quality of its own."



I wonder if we should remove the "dumb" rating - it seems rather rude.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 4, 2020)

gjs238 said:


> I wonder if we should remove the "dumb" rating - it seems rather rude.


Because he's dumb in not understanding what I'm saying, like he's just being argumentative.


----------



## mozit (Jun 4, 2020)

I can't believe the Buffalo has been nominated here. Statistically maybe the best bang for buck fighter in WW2. BW-364 possibly the highest scoring airframe of the war and the kill-loss ratio with the Finns was head and shoulders above anything else .......... once they fixed the engines so they were more reliable (yes, the cold weather helped too). Seems odd the yanks couldn't work out what was wrong with it ......
I think the I-16 is also unfairly judged here - it came into service in 1935, so really it is a pre-war aircraft with only a fraction of those produced still flying after the first days of Barbarossa.
The LaGG-3 is a better fit. Introduced in 1941 and with over 6,500 produced, I think it contributed greatly to the high scores gained by some Luftwaffe pilots.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 4, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> Because he's dumb in not understanding what I'm saying, like he's just being argumentative.



Why don't you put it to a forum poll. 
Is your argument dumb ? Or is Buffnutt dumb for not agreeing with you ?
You might be surprised.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Funny Funny:
2 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RW Mk. III (Jun 4, 2020)

mozit said:


> I can't believe the Buffalo has been nominated here. Statistically maybe the best bang for buck fighter in WW2. BW-364 possibly the highest scoring airframe of the war and the kill-loss ratio with the Finns was head and shoulders above anything else .......... once they fixed the engines so they were more reliable (yes, the cold weather helped too). Seems odd the yanks couldn't work out what was wrong with it ......
> I think the I-16 is also unfairly judged here - it came into service in 1935, so really it is a pre-war aircraft with only a fraction of those produced still flying after the first days of Barbarossa.
> The LaGG-3 is a better fit. Introduced in 1941 and with over 6,500 produced, I think it contributed greatly to the high scores gained by some Luftwaffe pilots.


I agree. The I-16 was a fantastic fighter, but a victim of being developed at a time where technological relevance lasted weeks.

Lagg3 is my number 2 choice. I say M.S.406. I am applying the same system that Clarkson and May did when trying to decide what the worst car in the world ever was (they got it right imho, but that's a different thread.) It has to be *terrible *not _cheap_. Someone had mentioned Caudrons earlier, I would call them cheap, not terrible.
More important is the _manufacturer that should have known better_ requirement.

Even if the Buffalo was actually as bad as all that, which it wasn't, Brewster was hardly an established old mill. In fact almost the definition of the little guy, an upstart.

The LaGG... Well frankly it's amazing they built it at all imho given the climate in the USSR at the time leading up to the German invasion.

The MS406 OTOH... Well that was one of the oldest airframe firms in the world. Their catalog was deep, to say the least. "406" could very well have literally meant it was the 406th design by Moraine Saulnier (not all necessarily built of course). They *should have known better*. The 406 was a dog, in every respect.

If I had to fight one of the two it would be the Buffalo every day of the week. And that was Brewster's second aircraft!!

Anyway that's my thinking behind my vote for the 406.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 4, 2020)

tyrodtom said:


> Why don't you put it to a forum poll.
> Is your argument dumb ? Or is Buffnutt dumb for not agreeing with you ?
> You might be surprised.


I'm not asking him to agree with me, I just think he's throwing irrelevant arguments at me. If he wants to argue then argue on the points I've made. Its like those who say the Swordfish was obsolete. It couldn't have been because it was used effectively throughout the war. There are even those who say the Hurricane was obsolete at the start of WW2.


----------



## cherry blossom (Jun 4, 2020)

In a certain sense the MS 406 was clearly the worse fighter of WW2 because its deficiencies were critical in the loss of the Battle of France. None of the other candidates caused a comparable disaster. There is an interesting blog at Flashback on glorious planes: Nieuport 161 vs Morane 406: The match as described by 30's French reviews (Enriched September 18, 2019 *) on why the MS 406 was selected for production.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 4, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> I'm not asking him to agree with me, I just think he's throwing irrelevant arguments at me. If he wants to argue then argue on the points I've made. Its like those who say the Swordfish was obsolete. It couldn't have been because it was used effectively throughout the war. There are even those who say the Hurricane was obsolete at the start of WW2.



Was the Henschel Hs 123 obsolete at the start of WW2?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 4, 2020)

Henschel Hs 123 was a dive bomber/close support aircraft. It was never intended to be fighter. Also had open cockpit and fixed landing gear.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Csch605 (Jun 4, 2020)

mozit said:


> I can't believe the Buffalo has been nominated here. Statistically maybe the best bang for buck fighter in WW2. BW-364 possibly the highest scoring airframe of the war and the kill-loss ratio with the Finns was head and shoulders above anything else .......... once they fixed the engines so they were more reliable (yes, the cold weather helped too). Seems odd the yanks couldn't work out what was wrong with it ......
> I think the I-16 is also unfairly judged here - it came into service in 1935, so really it is a pre-war aircraft with only a fraction of those produced still flying after the first days of Barbarossa.
> The LaGG-3 is a better fit. Introduced in 1941 and with over 6,500 produced, I think it contributed greatly to the high scores gained by some Luftwaffe pilots.


The Bf 109 was from 1937, the Buffalo was 1939, 1935 is close but the Russians had a very long time to refine and improve the I 16. The I16 The Buffalo produced 40 Aces 32 Finns 8 British Commowealth pilots. 40 Aces compared to 509 units built per Wikipedia. That last number seems incredible. LaGG3 looks pretty awful though but Russia sacrificed their fighters to make sure their ground attack planes were able to kill German soldiers, trucks and supply columns. It worked. So I have to give LaGG3 a hall pass.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 4, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> Small numbers of Hurricane IIs and Spitfire IIs were operational in the Bob. There's not a lot of performance difference between them.


It is a mighty small numbers in the BoB. The First Hurricane IIs don't show up until September and the Spitfire MK IIs only went to the first operational squadron in August. 
With the Germans shifting over to mostly night attacks by the beginning of October neither of the MK IIs really had any influence on the Battle. 

The performance difference was so small because they made the _deliberate choice_ to use the MK XX engine in the Hurricane because any other version of the Merlin available in late 1940/early 1941 would have meant a fighter that was NOT competitive with 109E. 

If you swapped the engines you would have had a really great Spitfire at the end of 1940 using MK XX engines but a Hurricane with a MK XII engine wasn't something the air ministry wanted to use. That meant a real reduction in the number of 1st rate fighters. So the Hurricane got the MK XX engines to help keep it competitive.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 4, 2020)

Without the LaGG 1 and 3 , there would have been no La 5 and La 7 later.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 4, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> Being economical with the truth maybe a better way of describing the situation. LOL. Think about this one. For the number of aircraft 'used up', the Hurricane destroyed 10% more enemy aircraft than the Spitfire and cost 10% less to build, so naturally the Air Ministry would want to put the Merlin XX in it rather than the Spitfire.



It is clear that the Hurricane required the XX to remain competitive, while the Spitfire did not.

They didn't know about the Bf 109F4 or Fw 190A at the time, otherwise they may have pressed ahead with the Spitfire III with Merlin XX.

I would like you to lay out the statistics that support the assertion that "Think about this one. For the number of aircraft 'used up', the Hurricane destroyed 10% more enemy aircraft than the Spitfire and cost 10% less to build".

And are you advocating dropping Spitfire production in favour of the Hurricane?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 4, 2020)

wuzak said:


> They didn't know about the Bf 109*F4*



Heck, they didn't know about the F-0/F-1 when the decision to put the Merlin XX into the Hurricane was made.  

Spitfire squadrons had a higher kill to loss ratio than the Hurricane and just as, if not more, important a lower attrition rate. At least combat attrition. 

There were 18-19 Spitfire squadrons for most of the battle compared to 28-31(?) Hurricane squadrons so the total number of kills per type has to be looked at carefully.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ktank (Jun 4, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Bachem Natter
> 
> Doesn't have retracting landing gear



And a guaranteed 100% aircraft loss rate per mission


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 4, 2020)

ktank said:


> And a guaranteed 100% aircraft loss rate per mission


 I think the Natter pilot parachuted out, then the Natter itself also descended on a parachute, for reuse.

It's a stretch, but a parachute might be considered a landing gear.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 4, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> It must have been terrifying for a pilot who hurt his back during landing, knowing he's sitting in a mostly wooden airframe, to then see fire break out with often explosive ferocity.



Indeed, even when getting in the thing for the first time, the pilot is confronted with the thought that the two tanks either side of him contain volatile fluid. I used to work at a museum in the UK with an Me 163 and we had a guy come in and demonstrate for us the ease at which HTP flashes if exposed to an element it reacts to. We were gonna do this for the public, but the curator thought better of it!

Some cockpit shots.





Komet 07

Either side of the seat are T-Stoff tanks.




Komet 09




Komet 16

Wooden instrument panel.




Komet 13

Here's a recollection by Komet pilot Mano Ziegler (from his book Rocket Fighter, The Story of the Me 163, Macdonald, London, 1963) of a landing accident he suffered and was very lucky to survive.

"I made a wide turn over a freshly ploughed field, and then crunch! I hit the ground heavily. The Komet bounced several times and then the skid bit into the sparse grass, grated over some stones and gravel, and I was slowing down rapildy. To be on the safe side, I pulled the canopy release handle while the aircraft was still moving, punched my harness quick-release and stripped off my goggles. Then it happened! There was a blinding flash from the floor and a wave of searing heat struck my face! Instinctively, I pulled up my knees, planted my feet hard against the seat, and jumped for all I was worth. Maybe I landed on my head or possibly on all fours. All I could think of was putting as much space between me and that burning Messerschmitt as was possible in no time flat!"

" There was a bang behind me, and I ran like a hare for twenty or thirty metres, and then glanced over my shoulder. The Komet had come to a standstill and was steaming like a boiling kettle and the skid housing ripped wide open and half the cockpit blown away! By the time the fire tender, the ambulance and the starter truck were racing towards me at full speed, and almost within seconds, jets of water were dousing the wreckage and Karl Voy and two of his mechanics were screaming at me: "Mano! Are you alright?"

"My face and hands felt as though they were on fire, and the tears streaming down my face were stinging my cheeks like drops of acid, but before getting medical attention I wanted to take another look at the wrecked aircraft. The cockpit really was in a bad way. Both the finger thick armour plates in the floor had burst asunder like so much cardboard, their jagged edges turned upwards. Metal scraps were dangling here and there, every rubber connection had burned away, and the glass in all the instruments had been shattered by heat. The frontal armour was as black as soot, and had cracked in the middle like a piece of rotten timber."




Science Museum Komet

Worst fighter of WW2? I don't think Buffalo, MS.406, or I-16 pilots had to contend with having to worry about that happening every time they landed.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 5, 2020)

wuzak said:


> It is clear that the Hurricane required the XX to remain competitive, while the Spitfire did not.
> 
> They didn't know about the Bf 109F4 or Fw 190A at the time, otherwise they may have pressed ahead with the Spitfire III with Merlin XX.
> 
> ...


If you don't know all this then obviously you haven't been following what sort of info is coming up on this forum.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 5, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Heck, they didn't know about the F-0/F-1 when the decision to put the Merlin XX into the Hurricane was made.
> 
> Spitfire squadrons had a higher kill to loss ratio than the Hurricane and just as, if not more, important a lower attrition rate. At least combat attrition.
> 
> There were 18-19 Spitfire squadrons for most of the battle compared to 28-31(?) Hurricane squadrons so the total number of kills per type has to be looked at carefully.


You need to go look at the production figures mate.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 5, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> It is a mighty small numbers in the BoB. The First Hurricane IIs don't show up until September and the Spitfire MK IIs only went to the first operational squadron in August.
> With the Germans shifting over to mostly night attacks by the beginning of October neither of the MK IIs really had any influence on the Battle.
> 
> The performance difference was so small because they made the _deliberate choice_ to use the MK XX engine in the Hurricane because any other version of the Merlin available in late 1940/early 1941 would have meant a fighter that was NOT competitive with 109E.
> ...


High altitude fighter bomber attacks too.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 5, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> Because he's dumb in not understanding what I'm saying, like he's just being argumentative.



In Post #83 I freely admitted I didn't understand your reference to the Merlin XX. I simply couldn't follow your train of thought. Unfortunately, instead of enlightening me you resorted to childish name-calling.

To summarize the discussion (with a few amplifying comments on the "truthfulness" or "accuracy" of total losses and combat losses), at Post #73 you stated that the RAF was lying about losses. I queried what part of the RAF loss figures were lies (Post #74). Your response (Post #75) was rather confusing because it started out with the relative ease of repair of the Hurricane-vs-Spitfire, but the general tenor was that the RAF should have reported total losses not just combat losses. In Post #76 I clarified that there’s a difference between combat losses and total losses because they’re measuring different things. You responded that, in your opinion, total loss numbers are “more realistic”.

At Post #81 I tried to explain why numbers for both total losses and combat losses are needed because they’re measuring different things. I’ll expand on that a little further before I go on. Military operations have 2 broad categories of metrics: Measures of Performance (MOPs) and Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs). MOPs are top-level assessments of what the force is doing, such as flying a number of sorties, dropping a certain tonnage of bombs. MOEs are measuring how effective those operations are at achieving the objective (e.g. removing the ability of the enemy’s senior leadership to communicate with tactical forces). MOPs and MOEs are often used together “We conducted 250 sorties dropping 500 bombs _[those are MOPs]_ and have effectively neutralized the enemy’s air defences with no friendly combat losses _[those are MOEs]_.”

Going back to the thread, the total loss metric is a MOP. Combat losses is a MOE as part of the kill/loss ratio. They’re measuring different things and one number is not any more accurate or truthful than the other. It just depends what they’re being used for. A total number of sorties on its own is just a number. What was accomplished with those sorties provides context. Same for losses. A total number of losses is just a number whereas a kill/loss ratio shows some measure of effectiveness and provides context. It's an established practice for kill/loss ratios to compare friendly combat losses with those enemy aircraft believed to have crashed during combat because there's no way for one force to know how many enemy aircraft reached home but were written off, nor is there any way to know how many enemy aircraft were lost in training accidents outside of combat operations. The kill/loss ratio is an attempt to make a like-for-like assessment of progress within the air campaign. 

In Post #82 you persist in suggesting that the measure of losses is somehow misleading. You then go onto a discussion about Hurricanes and Spitfires “used up” and a reference to the Merlin XX being installed in the Hurricane rather than a Spitfire. It’s at this point that you lost me completely. I simply cannot see the connection you’re trying to make. I explained that confusion in Post #83. Instead of explaining your statement and enlightening me, you simply labelled me dumb.

So…over to you. Please explain the relevance of your Merlin XX comment to the truthfulness or otherwise of combat losses.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 5, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> In Post #83 I freely admitted I didn't understand your reference to the Merlin XX. I simply couldn't follow your train of thought. Unfortunately, instead of enlightening me you resorted to childish name-calling.
> 
> To summarize the discussion (with a few amplifying comments on the "truthfulness" or "accuracy" of total losses and combat losses), at Post #73 you stated that the RAF was lying about losses. I queried what part of the RAF loss figures were lies (Post #74). Your response (Post #75) was rather confusing because it started out with the relative ease of repair of the Hurricane-vs-Spitfire, but the general tenor was that the RAF should have reported total losses not just combat losses. In Post #76 I clarified that there’s a difference between combat losses and total losses because they’re measuring different things. You responded that, in your opinion, total loss numbers are “more realistic”.
> 
> ...


My comment about installing the Merlin XX is simple to understand AFAIK. Imagine you're an accountant in the Air Ministry. Your buying 300 Hurricanes and 150 Spitfires pcm during the Battle, you have the same number of fighters at the end of the BoB as you did at the beginning. It costs 10% less to build a Hurricane than a Spitfire, 55% of Luftwaffe aircraft have shot down by Hurricanes, 25% by Spitfires, 2/3 single seat fighters are Hurricanes, 1/3 Spitfires. Obviously the decision to install the Merlin XX in the Hurricane is the correct one as overall, the Hurricane squadrons have destroyed 10 % more enemy aircraft than the Spitfire ones. You'll need a grasp of simple maths here. 
The Hurricane needs the Merlin XX to be competitive with the Bf 109E. The Hurricane is always competitive with the Me 110, which is one third of Luftwaffe production. Only a tiny fraction of South East England is flyable to by any Bf 109 even with drop tanks, so at best you only need a third of fighter production to be Spitfires. You do need the Spitfire to intercept high altitude bomber raids, so you take the high blower out of the Merlin XX and call it the Merlin 45 and put it in the Spitfire V.
You don't want the Spitfire III with Merlin XX because of too many changes to the production lines. The Hurricane II is still competitive in most of the UK until well after Fw 190a comes along although it is replaced with both the Typhoon and later mark Spitfires. 
You're getting the dumb rating because of your childish comments, please go back and read what you've been writing, it may also be an idea to edit them. Then I'll review my dumb ratings. You're also be unnecessarily augmentative. I know, words with more than one or two syllables. You might need a dictionary. Ronald Reagan definitely won't be able to help out there.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 5, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> My comment about installing the Merlin XX is simple to understand AFAIK. Imagine you're an accountant in the Air Ministry. Your buying 300 Hurricanes and 150 Spitfires pcm during the Battle, you have the same number of fighters at the end of the BoB as you did at the beginning. It costs 10% less to build a Hurricane than a Spitfire, 55% of Luftwaffe aircraft have shot down by Hurricanes, 25% by Spitfires, 2/3 single seat fighters are Hurricanes, 1/3 Spitfires. Obviously the decision to install the Merlin XX in the Hurricane is the correct one as overall, the Hurricane squadrons have destroyed 10 % more enemy aircraft than the Spitfire ones. You'll need a grasp of simple maths here.
> The Hurricane needs the Merlin XX to be competitive with the Bf 109E. The Hurricane is always competitive with the Me 110, which is one third of Luftwaffe production. Only a tiny fraction of South East England is flyable to by any Bf 109 even with drop tanks, so at best you only need a third of fighter production to be Spitfires. You do need the Spitfire to intercept high altitude bomber raids, so you take the high blower out of the Merlin XX and call it the Merlin 45 and put it in the Spitfire V.
> You don't want the Spitfire III with Merlin XX because of too many changes to the production lines. The Hurricane II is still competitive in most of the UK until well after Fw 190a comes along although it is replaced with both the Typhoon and later mark Spitfires.
> You're getting the dumb rating because of your childish comments, please go back and read what you've been writing, it may also be an idea to edit them. Then I'll review my dumb ratings. You're also be unnecessarily augmentative. I know, words with more than one or two syllables. You might need a dictionary. Ronald Reagan definitely won't be able to help out there.



Ok, so what you're talking about is an entirely appropriate use of total loss figures, and that's exactly what the RAF did. To the bean counter in the Air Ministry, total losses are critical. To an operational commander, and to the general population, kill/loss is a more relevant metric. 

This still doesn't explain why you think combat loss figures are lies or less useful. Again, it depends on the audience and what the data is needed for.

For the record, I'm not being unnecessarily argumentative. You made the claim that the RAF lied about losses. I'm simply trying to understand why you made that statement and explain, from my perspective, why combat loss figures still need to be measured in addition to total loss figures.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 5, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> Ok, so what you're talking about is an entirely appropriate use of total loss figures, and that's exactly what the RAF did. To the bean counter in the Air Ministry, total losses are critical. To an operational commander, and to the general population, kill/loss is a more relevant metric.
> 
> This still doesn't explain why you think combat loss figures are lies or less useful. Again, it depends on the audience and what the data is needed for.
> 
> For the record, I'm not being unnecessarily argumentative. You made the claim that the RAF lied about losses. I'm simply trying to understand why you made that statement and explain, from my perspective, why combat loss figures still need to be measured in addition to total loss figures.


There are statistics, more statistics then just straight forward lies. Let me give you a quick test here on how politicians use statistics to lie. How have our politicians used statistics to cover up why so many Black Asian and Minority Ethnic people have died?


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 5, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> There are statistics, more statistics then just straight forward lies. Let me give you a quick test here on how politicians use statistics to lie. How have our politicians used statistics to cover up why so many Black Asian and Minority Ethnic people have died?



I entirely agree that statistics can be used to mislead and lie...but you have yet to explain why RAF combat loss statistics constitute lies.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 5, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> I entirely agree that statistics can be used to mislead and lie...but you have yet to explain why RAF combat loss statistics constitute lies.


I rephrased my comment to say that they were being economical with the truth.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 5, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> I rephrased my comment to say that they were being economical with the truth.



You can change the words but it still doesn't alter the fundamental question. Why is a discussion about combat losses being economical with the truth? The fighter pilots made claims about enemy aircraft shot down and the RAF knew the resultant friendly losses. Therefore, it was straightforward and sensible to compare those combat-related activities. Using total losses is inappropriate because the RAF didn't have a clue about total Luftwaffe losses. 

Sorry, but I just can't understand why a direct comparison of combat kills/losses is being economical with the truth.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 5, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> You can change the words but it still doesn't alter the fundamental question. Why is a discussion about combat losses being economical with the truth? The fighter pilots made claims about enemy aircraft shot down and the RAF knew the resultant friendly losses. Therefore, it was straightforward and sensible to compare those combat-related activities. Using total losses is inappropriate because the RAF didn't have a clue about total Luftwaffe losses.
> 
> Sorry, but I just can't understand why a direct comparison of combat kills/losses is being economical with the truth.


It's statistics for propaganda purposes.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 5, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> It's statistics for propaganda purposes.



Then we'll have to agree to disagree that the data was used solely for propaganda. From my perspective, the combat kill/loss ratio is an entirely valid MOE which provides context that the average person can understand regarding progress of the campaign. 

It's also worth noting that OPSEC concerns mean that total losses are seldom discussed in the open. To use an Army example, there's never open reporting about the percentage of casualties within units and formations (if it does occur, it's long after the event when the loss numbers don't matter). No force is going to openly share the total state of its force because the enemy then has access to that data, which may enable them to change tactics or exploit weaknesses. There's no point making it easy for the enemy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 5, 2020)

I think the question still needs to be put to a poll.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 5, 2020)

Clearly you guys don't understand the question, the answer to worst mass produced (>500 units), monoplane, single-engine, single-seat, retractable undercarriage fighter of WW2 is obvious:

Reactions: Funny Funny:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 5, 2020)

Some of the aircraft (I-16) were known to be obsolete at the start of WWII; one would expect them to perform poorly. This defense does not work for some, like the Buffalo.


----------



## RW Mk. III (Jun 5, 2020)

I'm still stumping for the 406.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 5, 2020)

RW Mk. III said:


> I'm still stumping for the 406.


I’m not arguing. France was not well served by either its Air Force’s procurement office or its aviation industry

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ssnider (Jun 5, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> Some of the aircraft (I-16) were known to be obsolete at the start of WWII; one would expect them to perform poorly. This defense does not work for some, like the Buffalo.



The Buffalo does not need that defense.. Under the circumstances the British did not have a fighter that would have done any better against the Japanese, Both the Americans found it easier to blame the plane than admit that they had sent pilots into combat totally unprepared. , The Finns found their old Brewsters to be better than the other contemporary planes they had including hawk 75s and Hurricanes. In fact they considered the I-16 and Lagg-3 a more dangerous opponents then the Russian Hurricanes, Goeff Frisken considered the Buffalo to be a better fighter then the Hurricane IIB.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 5, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Henschel Hs 123 was a dive bomber/close support aircraft. It was never intended to be fighter. Also had open cockpit and fixed landing gear.



Hi - It was a rhetorical question for Kevin J.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 5, 2020)

ssnider said:


> The Buffalo does not need that defense.. Under the circumstances the British did not have a fighter that would have done any better against the Japanese,


The Buffalo was fine for the defence of Malaya. What they needed was more of them. In Nov 1941 Malaya Command had five active squadrons of Buffaloes for a territory larger than the UK (excluding the Sarawak, the Malay Peninsula alone is almost exactly the size of the entire UK), where RAF Fighter Command had over 80 fighter squadrons. 

This photo below of a dozen RAF Buffaloes represents a full fifth of the entirety of Malaya Command’s fighter force.






Give Malaya Command twenty squadrons of Buffaloes or something equal and they'll give the IJAF's Oscars and Nates a good fight. The Buffalo is fine, but you can't hold back a Japanese onslaught with sixty active aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 6, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> My comment about installing the Merlin XX is simple to understand AFAIK. Imagine you're an accountant in the Air Ministry. Your buying 300 Hurricanes and 150 Spitfires pcm during the Battle, you have the same number of fighters at the end of the BoB as you did at the beginning. It costs 10% less to build a Hurricane than a Spitfire, 55% of Luftwaffe aircraft have shot down by Hurricanes, 25% by Spitfires, 2/3 single seat fighters are Hurricanes, 1/3 Spitfires.



Point me to a link, a topic or post that has the statistics on which you are basing your analysis.

Also, I note that the aircraft losses do not form part of your reasoning. From what I understand, the Hurricane's victory/loss ratio was significantly lower than the Spitfire.

Also, would be great to know the proposition of fighters, bombers or other types that each Spitfire and Hurricane shot down.

The idea that Spitfires would go after fighters and Hurricanes bombers I believe is a myth. But it would still be interesting to see the breakdown by type destroyed.




Kevin J said:


> Obviously the decision to install the Merlin XX in the Hurricane is the correct one as overall, the Hurricane squadrons have destroyed 10 % more enemy aircraft than the Spitfire ones. You'll need a grasp of simple maths here.



With twice as many aircraft?




Kevin J said:


> The Hurricane needs the Merlin XX to be competitive with the Bf 109E. The Hurricane is always competitive with the Me 110, which is one third of Luftwaffe production. Only a tiny fraction of South East England is flyable to by any Bf 109 even with drop tanks, so at best you only need a third of fighter production to be Spitfires. You do need the Spitfire to intercept high altitude bomber raids, so you take the *high blower out of the Merlin XX and call it the Merlin 45* and put it in the Spitfire V.



If the Hurricane is not to intercept "high altitude bomber raids", what is it supposed to do? Only go after bombers that fly in at the right height?

You do know that with the same engine the Spitfire was faster than the Hurricane at all heights? Had better rate of climb, higher critical altitude (yes, even with the same engine - that's what extra speed and ram effect gets you) and a higher ceiling.

You did mean to say they took out the *MEDIUM blower (MS)*, not the *HIGH blower (FS)*?

Fun fact, the high gear (FS) in the Merlin XX was not the same ratio as the gear in the 45, and was in fact a higher ratio. That meant that the supercharger span faster and the XX had a higher critical altitude/FTH than the 45.

This is because single stage engines are, inevitably, a compromise. Running the same gear in the 45 as the XX would have sacrificed even more low altitude performance.




Kevin J said:


> You don't want the Spitfire III with Merlin XX because of too many changes to the production lines. The Hurricane II is still competitive in most of the UK until well after Fw 190a comes along although it is replaced with both the Typhoon and later mark Spitfires.



Not sure how you can say that the "Hurricane II is still competitive in most of the UK until well after Fw 190a comes along", since the Fw 190A had arrived and the Hurricane II could not compete with that. Nor could it compete with Bf 109F1/2 or Bf 109F4, which arrived earlier than the Fw 190A.

To be frank, there are a few reasons why the Hurricane remained in production as long as it did, and I'm not sure that any had to do with performance.

#1 was that there were not enough Spitfires.
#2 was that the Typhoon wasn't going to be around, in sufficient numbers in time (remembering that the Typhoon was supposed to replace the Hurricane _and _Spitfire).
#3 was the time and effort required to change a factory designed to build aircraft made with a tubular steel frame and covered in fabric to one that used modern stressed skin aluminium construction.

The problem with basing decisions solely on accounting is that it is not very forward looking.

In 1940 it was obvious that keeping the Hurricane competitive with enemy aircraft would be difficult in the next few years. Something better was required - that was supposed to be the Typhoon, something the Air Ministry had planned for in 1938. 

Regrading the MK.III, most of the changes required were unrelated to the engine installation. There were many areas of improved aerodynamics, for example. 

The Spitfire V was essentially a Spitfire II with a Merlin 45 fitted. Such a conversion with the XX would have required more changes than for the 45, but not nearly as extensive as for the Mk.III.

A couple of extra points: the guy at the Air Ministry that saw the development of the Griffon and suggested it be used in an RAF fighter never mentioned the Hurricane, and Lord Hives of Rolls-Royce did not suggest putting the Merlin 60, developed for the high altitude Wellington, into a Hurricane. It may have been cheaper to do so, but they saw no point in it.

So, thank God that accountants did not control aircraft procurement in WW2.

Reactions: Like Like:
 1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 6, 2020)




----------



## tengu1979 (Jun 6, 2020)

I am leaning closer to MS.406 on this one but cannot disregard Bloch 150 family. Decent-ish airframe totally killed by engine (as true with most French aircraft of the era). If the CR.714 was built in bigger numbers I would have a clear contender though.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 6, 2020)

tengu1979 said:


> I am leaning closer to MS.406 on this one but cannot disregard Bloch 150 family. Decent-ish airframe totally killed by engine (as true with most French aircraft of the era). If the CR.714 was built in bigger numbers I would have a clear contender though.


When you say the Ms 406 fighter is bad, you're forgetting that the Swiss used them and further developed them during the war, they also got sent to France's colonial outposts. So against a Bf 109E, outclassed in almost all performance aspects although if used as close escort for French bombers, competitive. As a rear area bomber interceptor in 1939/40, competitive. Against anything the Italians or Japanese had in 1940 with the exception of small numbers of Zero's, competitive. Against any fighter the FAA had in 1940/41, competitive. Once the Seafire, Sea Hurricane II & Wildcat but not Martlet arrive, not competitive. So its not a bad fighter at all.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 6, 2020)

You do rea


wuzak said:


> Point me to a link, a topic or post that has the statistics on which you are basing your analysis.
> 
> Also, I note that the aircraft losses do not form part of your reasoning. From what I understand, the Hurricane's victory/loss ratio was significantly lower than the Spitfire.
> 
> ...


You do realise that the Hurricane IIc was still being used in 1944 by the Soviets in the Arctic rear areas as a bomber interceptor and as close escort for attack aircraft though they did get mauled by some Bf 109Gs they tangled with on one escort mission and had to be rescued by some P-39s. Our FAA was still using the Sea Hurricane IIc on Arctic convoys until November 1944. It was competitive with the Me 110, the Bf 109 couldn't reach the convoys. Four 20 mm cannon packs enough punch to destroy anything that crosses its path. 
As for the rest of your crap. No comment.


----------



## tengu1979 (Jun 6, 2020)

Well you have a point. Finns by puting Klimovs in them (Morko Morane) had quite few successes with them as well. The problem with Blochs on the other hand is the engine severely hampering performance. And that it was continued in production after armistice so 663 units were produced throughout a war including 157 which had good performance. Getting the worst is not gonna be easy at all as we either had obsolete aircraft by start of the war vs better designs in their first combat. Or bad designs that wont match mass build criteria.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## taly01 (Jun 6, 2020)

The Finnish WW2 experience with the fighters other countries could spare may be a good baseline for the worst of the worst.

The Morane 406/410 were the least successful "modern" fighter the FAF had, next by success was Fiat G-50, then Curtiss Hawk 75A, then the Brewster Buffalo F2A-1 was by far the best. The performances they got from the everything but the Buffalo was well below the makers claimed performance.

(The least successful fighter the FAF used was Gloster Gladiator by ratio of pilots lost, so the I-16 was good for something.)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tengu1979 (Jun 6, 2020)

On the other part. If hurricane was that bad they will surely stop producing it quicker then they did. Hurricanes were used with relative success in Burma and North Africa as fighter bombers. I think the ease of repair and lower repair cost was something of value as well. While no match for latest iterations of 109s and 190s it was still enough for most Italian Arsenal. (probably no match for Veltro or Fiat G.55 but i am not sure if these were present in the area with great numbers)

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 6, 2020)

tengu1979 said:


> I am leaning closer to MS.406 on this one but cannot disregard Bloch 150 family. Decent-ish airframe totally killed by engine (as true with most French aircraft of the era). If the CR.714 was built in bigger numbers I would have a clear contender though.


Wasn‘t the final MB fighter supposed to be fast? Or was that the aircraft where the Germans mixed up mph or kph?

Bloch MB-157


----------



## tengu1979 (Jun 6, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Wasn‘t the final MB fighter supposed to be fast? Or was that the aircraft where the Germans mixed up mph or kph?
> 
> Bloch MB-157


The 157 was the only one with enough performance. That is why i am not putting it up as the worst. It doesnt have a good record with 151,152 or even 155 on the other hand.


----------



## RW Mk. III (Jun 6, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> When you say the Ms 406 fighter is bad, you're forgetting that the Swiss used them and further developed them during the war, they also got sent to France's colonial outposts. So against a Bf 109E, outclassed in almost all performance aspects although if used as close escort for French bombers, competitive. As a rear area bomber interceptor in 1939/40, competitive. Against anything the Italians or Japanese had in 1940 with the exception of small numbers of Zero's, competitive. Against any fighter the FAA had in 1940/41, competitive. Once the Seafire, Sea Hurricane II & Wildcat but not Martlet arrive, not competitive. So its not a bad fighter at all.


According to profile publications, Gaston Botquin (I don't know the quality of this source) FAA Fulmars made short work of the MS406 they encountered in Madagascar.

Edit: looking into it it looks like Botquin was wrong, unless there is another engagement he is referencing. It was 3 Martlets vs 3 406. 1 Martlet forced landing to 3 406 destroyed.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 6, 2020)

RW Mk. III said:


> According to profile publications, Gaston Botquin (I don't know the quality of this source) FAA Fulmars made short work of the MS406 they encountered in Madagascar.
> 
> Edit: looking into it it looks like Botquin was wrong, unless there is another engagement he is referencing. It was 3 Martlets vs 3 406. 1 Martlet forced landing to 3 406 destroyed.


The FAA had the best pilots in the World. You'd have to be the best to manage carrier take off and landings. The French pilots probably had succumbed to the colonial lifestyle.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 6, 2020)

RW Mk. III said:


> I'm still stumping for the 406.


Someone must have liked it enough to keep one in running form.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 6, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> The FAA had the best pilots in the World. You'd have to be the best to manage carrier take off and landings. The French pilots probably had succumbed to the colonial lifestyle.



They also may have been poorly supplied as a) the Axis submariners weren't terribly discerning about the nationalities of the ships they sunk, b) the RN wasn't likely to allow Vichy French ships into convoys, especially those carrying military spares, c) aviation military production was monitored and restricted by the Germans and, d) Madagascar was probably the French colony felt to be under the least external threat, as the UK hadn't been threatening to French possessions since well before WWI and the Portuguese couldn't. I don't know what internal issues the French colonial authorities had in Madagascar, but internal security duties frequently seem to be very effective at ruining armed forces for combat with real armed forces.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## RW Mk. III (Jun 6, 2020)

taly01 said:


> The Finnish WW2 experience with the fighters other countries could spare may be a good baseline for the worst of the worst.
> 
> The Morane 406/410 were the least successful "modern" fighter the FAF had, next by success was Fiat G-50, then Curtiss Hawk 75A, then the Brewster Buffalo F2A-1 was by far the best. The performances they got from the everything but the Buffalo was well below the makers claimed performance.
> 
> (The least successful fighter the FAF used was Gloster Gladiator by ratio of pilots lost, so the I-16 was good for something.)


^^^I think this cuts to the heart of the matter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 6, 2020)

tengu1979 said:


> On the other part. If hurricane was that bad they will surely stop producing it quicker then they did. Hurricanes were used with relative success in Burma and North Africa as fighter bombers.



There is little doubt that the Hurricane did much good work as a fighter bomber/close support aircraft. That does not mean that they were under any illusions as to how good it was as a fighter plane. Lets also remember that the Typhoon was close to being canceled at one point and production was little more than a trickle for the first year or so. 

You also have to look at the results of the Bombing of Supermarine's Southampton works. from wiki;

"Production fell from 363 aircraft in the quarter before the raids to 177 and 179 respectively in the next two quarters. It took another nine months before it was back to 100 per month,"

Castle Bromwich had only started producing Spitfires in June of 1940 with 10 planes delivered that month (MK IIs) 

The bombing of the Southampton works and subsequent dispersal cost at least 600 Spitfires if not more over the next year to year and a quarter and the uncertainty of Spitfire production in the fall of 1940 /and winter/spring of 1941 may have helped the placement of Hurricane orders during that time. The Hurricane II may not have been what was wanted but what they could get.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 6, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> There is little doubt that the Hurricane did much good work as a fighter bomber/close support aircraft. That does not mean that they were under any illusions as to how good it was as a fighter plane. Lets also remember that the Typhoon was close to being canceled at one point and production was little more than a trickle for the first year or so.
> 
> You also have to look at the results of the Bombing of Supermarine's Southampton works. from wiki;
> 
> ...


The issue you miss here is that both Hurricane and Spitfire production is going flat out with a 50 % increase in deliveries during the Bob so there was always going to be a drop off after the Battle. You've probably only lost. I doubt if you've lost more 250 in the following 6 months.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 6, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> The issue you miss here is that both Hurricane and Spitfire production is going flat out with a 50 % increase in deliveries during the Bob so there was always going to be a drop off after the Battle. You've probably only lost. I doubt if you've lost more 250 in the following 6 months.



British Weekly Fighter Aircraft Production, Apr-Oct 1940

British Aircraft Production, 1938-1944 – Monthly Deliveries of New Aircraft — Articles | history

Fighter production did have a dip towards the end of 1940, but recovered after. Production of fighters increased at least until 1944.

Not sure why you would think that production of fighters would drop after the Battle of Britain. They still needed as many fighters as they could get, which included buying P-40s, P-51s, etc. as well as domestic production.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 6, 2020)

wuzak said:


> British Weekly Fighter Aircraft Production, Apr-Oct 1940
> 
> British Aircraft Production, 1938-1944 – Monthly Deliveries of New Aircraft — Articles | history
> 
> ...


You're contradicting yourself and then confirming what I've said.


----------



## tengu1979 (Jun 7, 2020)

Well True. Still wouldnt call it worst fighter of ww2. I would take it over MS406, Fiat G. 50 and Bloch 152 any day.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 7, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> You're contradicting yourself and then confirming what I've said.



I am? I did?

You said: "both Hurricane and Spitfire production is going flat out with a 50 % increase in deliveries during the Bob so there was always going to be a drop off after the Battle. "

I'm not sure why an increase in production before the battle would lead to a decrease after the battle. Where is the logic there?

Shortround's explanation makes more sense - production was interrupted by outside influences. That is bombing. Certainly Spitfire production was back to near its peak during the BoB by the end of 1940, and would increase even more in 1941 as Castle Bromwich got into full swing.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 7, 2020)

wuzak said:


> I am? I did?
> 
> You said: "both Hurricane and Spitfire production is going flat out with a 50 % increase in deliveries during the Bob so there was always going to be a drop off after the Battle. "
> 
> ...


It's called overtime mate, people work 7 to 8 hours per day, then get paid overtime, 28 days holiday even company paid sick pay, always have done. During the BoB more overtime was worked. You can't keep that up for more than 3 months.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 7, 2020)

wuzak said:


> I am? I did?
> 
> You said: "both Hurricane and Spitfire production is going flat out with a 50 % increase in deliveries during the Bob so there was always going to be a drop off after the Battle. "
> 
> ...


So my 300 Hurricanes and 150 Spitfires pcm during the Bob comes from memory, from a book purchased in the seventies which I no longer have. It also included rebuilt fighters so it would be slightly higher than your figures for new build deliveries. Then comes the problem of reconciling the Luftwaffe claims of 1200 Spitfires and 2000 Hurricanes destroyed. Now somewhere on here, I've seen the claim that post war analysis of Luftwaffe claims vs actual losses was 7:4 which would reduce their actual victories to 1840 or so, matching my assertion that the RAF actually received 1800 fighters between July and October 1940.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 7, 2020)

I just graphed the data from the website British Weekly Fighter Aircraft Production, Apr-Oct 1940 

There is a dip of production about the middle of August, at the height of the BoB, for both the Hurricane and Spitfire.

There is a dip of Spitfire production in late September, not really for the Hurricane.

There were three raids on the Supermarine works in September 1940. First was a small raid on the 15th by Me 110s, which did little damage.

The second was on the 24th of September by Me 110s which did little damage to the factory, but killed 42 people and injured 161. Three aircraft did attack later in the afternoon as well.

The thirds was on the 26th of September, with 60 He 111s and 60 Me 110s. This destroyed the two Type 317 prototypes, three Spitfires and damaged 20. 55 workers were killed and 92 injured.

This lines up with the dip in the graph in late September.

Overall the trend for Spitfire production was up over this period, while Hurricane production peaked before the battle and trended slightly down afterwards.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 7, 2020)

wuzak said:


> View attachment 584340
> 
> 
> I just graphed the data from the website British Weekly Fighter Aircraft Production, Apr-Oct 1940
> ...


You're not going to decrease production in the middle of the battle without good reason. My good reason is rebuilds. A drop in Spitfire production during September for Spitfires, that would be the effect of production dispersal after the Supermarine works raids. With my figures, you can explain away the Luftwaffe claims.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 7, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> The issue you miss here is that both Hurricane and Spitfire production is going flat out with a 50 % increase in deliveries during the Bob so there was always going to be a drop off after the Battle. You've probably only lost. I doubt if you've lost more 250 in the following 6 months.



try looking at the figures in the link Wuzak posted.
Production is never a smooth curve.
Spitfire production increases from June on as Castle Bromwich comes on line. Supermarine Southampton is bombed several times in Sept. with differing amounts of physical damage and employ losses,
24 September 1940 42 were killed and 161 injured many nearby houses were destroyed with terrible loss of life
26 September more than 70 tons of bombs were dropped, with seven bombs directly hitting the Woolston works and one hitting the Itchen works. the Woolston works were never rebuilt.
55 were killed and 92 injured.
mid November 1940, 35 workshops were up and running in the dispersal scheme.

This is not a let down after the BoB was over. The numbers drop from peaks of 40 Spits every two weeks back down to the 20s of before Castle Bromwich came on line. Castle Bromwich is doing much of the production in Oct and Nov. As noted above it would take more than a year for the Southampton dispersed workshops to equal the production of the Woolston and Itchen works before the raids.

You might want to check on your rather bogus hours and days worked numbers too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 7, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> try looking at the figures in the link Wuzak posted.
> Production is never a smooth curve.
> Spitfire production increases from June on as Castle Bromwich comes on line. Supermarine Southampton is bombed several times in Sept. with differing amounts of physical damage and employ losses,
> 24 September 1940 42 were killed and 161 injured many nearby houses were destroyed with terrible loss of life
> ...


Isn't it magic how if you look at the annual production figures, divide by 12, multiply by 3 then you get the magic 900 the RAF said it lost. Obviously the Luftwaffe wasn't told that the BoB was only August to October till later. Ho ho. I imagine the Germans must have been scratching their heads at some point wondering how their 3200 victory claims was only 900 in reality. Ho ho. The reverse happens during 1941 with the the RAF wildly over estimating their victories over German fighters.


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 7, 2020)

Ho ho?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 7, 2020)



Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 7, 2020)

fubar57 said:


> View attachment 584402​


Okay. In the midst of the battle, production actually drops. How do you explain that one away? There's the same sort of problem with the Luftwaffe numbers post BoB. Bf 109F-1 totals 210 aircraft about 30 pcm finishing in Feb-41, yet there is only a handful in operation end Jan 41. In the whole of 1941 they only lose a 100 plus fighters over the Channel Front and yet they've produced 1200 plus F-2's from February and 1800 plus F-4's from July.


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 8, 2020)

Lots of bombs and deaths happened in September...1939-1940 – The War comes to Southampton

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 8, 2020)

Production drops happen for a number of reasons. As fubar57 pointed out, bombs hitting the factories or houses of the workers would be a major cause of disruption. Production drops can also happen when a factory changes over production from one variant to another. For example, changing Spitfire production from A wings to B wings involved numerous detail changes that had to be implemented at production scale. It would take some time to retool jigs and frames to complete the changeover, likely resulting in a reduction in output.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 8, 2020)

Even just having an air raid warning could disrupt production, let alone the facility actually being bombed.

Apart from June to July, the planned production increased through the period.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 8, 2020)

fubar57 said:


> Ho ho?


Or as the old saying goes... "Ho Ho Ho... Hoe"


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 8, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> Or as the old saying goes... "Ho Ho Ho... Hoe"


I'd say you get a drop in production to build more spares. Ho, ho, ho, hoe.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 8, 2020)

You don't think that production contracts, especially for engines, included the provision of spare parts?


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 8, 2020)

wuzak said:


> You don't think that production contracts, especially for engines, included the provision of spare parts?


Yes, but how many? Like I said you can't reconcile in any way the German claims against the British admission of losses.


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 8, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> I'd say you get a drop in production to build more spares. Ho, ho, ho, hoe.


Can we see your documentation of said spares


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 8, 2020)

fubar57 said:


> Can we see your documentation of said spares


I don't have anything. Like I said, it was in a book I read back in the seventies saying production was higher, composite aircraft were being built. There was even a question in parliament about the speed of repaired Hurricanes, which was 306 not 324 mph.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 8, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> Like I said you can't reconcile in any way the German claims against the British admission of losses.



Claims of kills were notoriously inaccurate, largely due to the claiming pilot often having little more than a split-second view of the enemy aircraft before he needed to redirect his attention to ensure he wasn't becoming a target. 

A great many claims were made because an aircraft appeared to depart from controlled flight, often accompanied by a puff of smoke, which, instead, indicated the enemy pilot pushing the throttle open and manoeuvring wildly to avoid being shot down. And that's before we consider the same enemy aircraft being claimed by more than one pilot. 

Claims could easily be 2x, 3x, 4x or more the actual losses sustained by an enemy. So why do you think there would be any correlation between one side's claims and the other side's losses?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 8, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> Claims of kills were notoriously inaccurate, largely due to the claiming pilot often having little more than a split-second view of the enemy aircraft before he needed to redirect his attention to ensure he wasn't becoming a target.
> 
> A great many claims were made because an aircraft appeared to depart from controlled flight, often accompanied by a puff of smoke, which, instead, indicated the enemy pilot pushing the throttle open and manoeuvring wildly to avoid being shot down. And that's before we consider the same enemy aircraft being claimed by more than one pilot.
> 
> Claims could easily be 2x, 3x, 4x or more the actual losses sustained by an enemy. So why do you think there would be any correlation between one side's claims and the other side's losses?


In that case, we should use a different metric other than claims to losses, maybe production to claims?


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 8, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> In that case, we should use a different metric other than claims to losses, maybe production to losses?



That would rely on both sides knowing the other's production output, which is all but impossible. Even then, production is irrelevant if you don't have a host of other resources - trained personnel (air and groundcrews), fuel and oil, ammunition etc. An aircraft without those things will just sit on the ground and be no threat to anyone.

Claims-to-losses has been and continues to be a valid combat metric because, despite it's many flaws, it's still the only way to measure the effectiveness of an air superiority campaign.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 8, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> In that case, we should use a different metric other than claims to losses, maybe production to claims?



Production to claims would be meaningless because not all aircraft produced are deployed to the battle zone. 

For instance, the RAF had 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 Groups during the Battle of Britain. 11 Group (under Park) and 12 Group (under Leigh-Mallory) did most of the fighting during the battle. The other groups defended areas of the UK which saw much less fighting. 

Also, production often initially went to training units or maintenance units for storage until required.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 8, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> I don't have anything. Like I said, it was in a book I read back in the seventies saying production was higher, composite aircraft were being built. There was even a question in parliament about the speed of repaired Hurricanes, which was 306 not 324 mph.



Composite, as in cannibalising one aircraft to fix another?


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 9, 2020)

wuzak said:


> Composite, as in cannibalising one aircraft to fix another?


Yes, bits two creating one.


----------



## Just Schmidt (Jun 10, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Here's a recollection by Komet pilot Mano Ziegler (from his book Rocket Fighter, The Story of the Me 163, Macdonald, London, 1963) of a landing accident he suffered and was very lucky to survive.



After reading that exellent little piece, I get a feeling the comet at least is a contender for the most aptly named fighter of ww2.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 10, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> Isn't it magic how if you look at the annual production figures, divide by 12, multiply by 3 then you get the magic 900 the RAF said it lost. Obviously the Luftwaffe wasn't told that the BoB was only August to October till later. Ho ho. I imagine the Germans must have been scratching their heads at some point wondering how their 3200 victory claims was only 900 in reality. Ho ho. The reverse happens during 1941 with the the RAF wildly over estimating their victories over German fighters.


You cannot use such a simplistic calculation of average production with the Spitfire in 1939/40. When war was declared the RAF had approximately 130 in service, an astonishing percentage being lost in accidents I believe about 30%. At the fall of France this had increased to around 250 which with approx 250 Hurricanes made up Dowdings minimum of 500 it quickly rose as the table shows until the battle really started. During the battle as has been said production was dispersed factories bombed and a new factory brought into production. However that is only one part of the issue even in war time most fighter aircraft are not lost to enemy action, they are lost in accidents or simply replaced because the limiting factor is pilots. If an engine needs a rebuild after 250 hours and airframes need lots of work or checking after a similar number of hours it becomes simpler to just replace them with new. When Castle Bromwich started producing MkIIs in June and they went into service in August they replaced Mk Is. Just as they were replaced by MkVs and then MkIXs. The table posted by Fubar shows the rate of "churn" I believe they are new production and planes reclaimed combined. Every month the RAF received around 1000 fighters, twice its previous full time strength yet the number in service only went up by 150. It is a similar story with P-51s look at all the P-51B/C and D variants shipped to Europe look at how many were shot down and tell me where the rest went, it is documented somewhere but on the face of it they seem to evaporate as soon as combat really starts.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 11, 2020)

pbehn said:


> You cannot use such a simplistic calculation of average production with the Spitfire in 1939/40. When war was declared the RAF had approximately 130 in service, an astonishing percentage being lost in accidents I believe about 30%. At the fall of France this had increased to around 250 which with approx 250 Hurricanes made up Dowdings minimum of 500 it quickly rose as the table shows until the battle really started. During the battle as has been said production was dispersed factories bombed and a new factory brought into production. However that is only one part of the issue even in war time most fighter aircraft are not lost to enemy action, they are lost in accidents or simply replaced because the limiting factor is pilots. If an engine needs a rebuild after 250 hours and airframes need lots of work or checking after a similar number of hours it becomes simpler to just replace them with new. When Castle Bromwich started producing MkIIs in June and they went into service in August they replaced Mk Is. Just as they were replaced by MkVs and then MkIXs. The table posted by Fubar shows the rate of "churn" I believe they are new production and planes reclaimed combined. Every month the RAF received around 1000 fighters, twice its previous full time strength yet the number in service only went up by 150. It is a similar story with P-51s look at all the P-51B/C and D variants shipped to Europe look at how many were shot down and tell me where the rest went, it is documented somewhere but on the face of it they seem to evaporate as soon as combat really starts.


You obviously don't understand sarcasm, nor what I was saying. Even I never claimed 1000 pcm, only 450 combined pcm production including rebuilds.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 11, 2020)

We often forget the (by modern standards) phenomenally high accident rates in the 1940s. 

Those airframes that did survive relatively unscathed often were scrapped when they became worn out simply because of the rough handling they suffered during combat ops. The life of a front-line fighter aircraft was measured in months at best (more frequently just weeks), which is why so few actual combat veteran airframes survive. Those that do are frequently name-plate restorations.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 11, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> We often forget the (by modern standards) phenomenally high accident rates in the 1940s.
> 
> Those airframes that did survive relatively unscathed often were scrapped when they became worn out simply because of the rough handling they suffered during combat ops. The life of a front-line fighter aircraft was measured in months at best (more frequently just weeks), which is why so few actual combat veteran airframes survive. Those that do are frequently name-plate restorations.


Yes and no. There were certainly several thousand Spitfires and Hurricanes left over after the war. Somewhere I read that there were 6000 Mustangs in the States that never got deployed overseas. As for the Russians wooden fighters, the numbers written off due to weather erosion was staggering.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 11, 2020)

wuzak said:


> You don't think that production contracts, especially for engines, included the provision of spare parts?


Minimal numbers would be my guess. I recall reading years ago that spares equivalent to 1000 airframes to fix 14k Hurricanes built. Also 2011 P-40F/L built, 300 re-engined with V-1710. So obviously not enough to go round.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 11, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> You obviously don't understand sarcasm, nor what I was saying. Even I never claimed 1000 pcm, only 450 combined pcm production including rebuilds.


I wasn't referring to your sarcasm but to your calculation.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 11, 2020)

pbehn said:


> I wasn't referring to your sarcasm but to your calculation.


Well, if the RAF are receiving 1000 fighters pcm, and the numbers available only go up by 150, is that over the 3 months the RAF considered to be the BoB, or perhaps the 4 months that the Luftwaffe considered the BoB. Because if its 4 months then that's a loss of (4000-150 =) 3850 fighters or if its 3 months then that's (3000-150=) 2850, so split the difference and you get 3350 which would match fairly closely the 3200 claims the Luftwaffe made. I'm working on the 4 month period with 450 delivered pcm which gives about 1800 losses. Multiply Luftwaffe claims of 3200 by 4 and divide by 7 to cater for over claiming and you get 1840 which is close to my estimated losses of 1800. Also about 500 Hurricanes and 271 Spitfires had been delivered by the time WW2 started. I think you need to check your maths. The official 900 or so losses announced to the public is pretty much 3 months of the 12 months production in 1940, or 600 Hurricanes and 300 Spitfires. You can prove anything with statistics. I mean 900 losses looks quite reasonable and plausible so long as you don't take account of rebuilding 2 damaged fighters to create one new one.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 11, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> Well, if the RAF are receiving 1000 fighters pcm, and the numbers available only go up by 150, is that over the 3 months the RAF considered to be the BoB, or perhaps the 4 months that the Luftwaffe considered the BoB. Because if its 4 months then that's a loss of (4000-150 =) 3850 fighters or if its 3 months then that's (3000-150=) 2850, so split the difference and you get 3350 which would match fairly closely the 3200 claims the Luftwaffe made. I'm working on the 4 month period with 450 delivered pcm which gives about 1800 losses. Multiply Luftwaffe claims of 3200 by 4 and divide by 7 to cater for over claiming and you get 1840 which is close to my estimated losses of 1800. Also about 500 Hurricanes and 271 Spitfires had been delivered by the time WW2 started. I think you need to check your maths. The official 900 or so losses announced to the public is pretty much 3 months of the 12 months production in 1940, or 600 Hurricanes and 300 Spitfires. You can prove anything with statistics. I mean 900 losses looks quite reasonable and plausible so long as you don't take account of rebuilding 2 damaged fighters to create one new one.


When you say "announced to the public" do you mean announced as losses in combat or the total losses to all reasons? There were ten operational Spitfire squadrons when war was declared. I was referring to the post by Fubar #153 using 1000 as the ball park average (its slightly more but also includes Defiants and Blenheims). The point I was making was aircraft needed is massively more than aircraft lost to enemy action in combat. Before the war started the RAF couldnt receive Hurricanes as fast as Hawkers could produce them so they got permission to export them, it was the Battle of France that reduced numbers in front line service by almost 200. What is your "estimate" of? Losses in combat losses to enemy action, losses by front line squadrons, losses to all causes in RAF service or all losses?


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 11, 2020)

Yes but which bombed out factory built the worst mass produced, single engine, single seat, monoplane fighter with retractable landing gear?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Jun 11, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> It's called overtime mate, people work 7 to 8 hours per day, then get paid overtime, 28 days holiday even company paid sick pay, always have done. During the BoB more overtime was worked. You can't keep that up for more than 3 months.



The British munitions industry went to a 12 hour x 7 day shift at the outset of WW2. Within 2 weeks production was LESS than previous.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 11, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> The British munitions industry went to a 12 hour x 7 day shift at the outset of WW2. Within 2 weeks production was LESS than previous.


In general no factory can work 24/7 week after week, I never worked at one that did. Machines need maintaining, if you don't stop and do it properly very quickly things break or malfunction. Also when at war, as well as working 12 hrs many were working in other roles as volunteers and others were kept awake by raids and having to move from bombed out houses, some were killed and injured.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 11, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> Yes and no. There were certainly several thousand Spitfires and Hurricanes left over after the war. Somewhere I read that there were 6000 Mustangs in the States that never got deployed overseas.



Not entirely sure what point having aircraft left over at the end of the war has to do with wastage rates during the war. In well-managed wartime logistics chains, production is at least sufficient to meet wastage (combat losses plus non-operational losses, including write-offs). Given that the protagonists don't know when the war will actually end, production continues unabated with aircraft at various stages of the supply chain, to include those operating with squadrons that are still suitable for combat operations, when peace is finally declared. However, those excess aircraft would mostly be scrapped in pretty short order as forces are reduced after the war. That still doesn't change the fact that most surviving aircraft are not combat veterans, with the preponderance being later marks (because the earlier versions were scrapped to be replaced by more advanced variants).


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 11, 2020)

pbehn said:


> When you say "announced to the public" do you mean announced as losses in combat or the total losses to all reasons? There were ten operational Spitfire squadrons when war was declared. I was referring to the post by Fubar #153 using 1000 as the ball park average (its slightly more but also includes Defiants and Blenheims). The point I was making was aircraft needed is massively more than aircraft lost to enemy action in combat. Before the war started the RAF couldnt receive Hurricanes as fast as Hawkers could produce them so they got permission to export them, it was the Battle of France that reduced numbers in front line service by almost 200. What is your "estimate" of? Losses in combat losses to enemy action, losses by front line squadrons, losses to all causes in RAF service or all losses?


Okay let's give a start date for the BoB of 26 June 1940 when the Luftwaffe started their nuisance raids. This follows a week after Churchill's "the battle of France is over, the Battle of Britain has begun". So from w/e July 29th to w/e November 2nd, 1135 Hurricanes and 595 Spitfires were produced plus 40 Canadian Hurricanes. Also 278 Mohawks were received from France and USA and held at maintenance units. An average of 450 single seat single engine fighters pcm which matches my figures. The Germans regard the BoB as ending when the Blitz ended. The figure I've seen is that a squadron in the front line will use up, 50 aircraft every 6 months. So if at the end of the BoB, the official figure is 900 losses then clearly this is economical with the truth as 1800 must have been lost. Between w/e April 6th and w/e 22nd June, 206 Spitfires and 632 Hurricanes were produced. So how many were lost over France and Belgium? 500 or so?


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 11, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> The British munitions industry went to a 12 hour x 7 day shift at the outset of WW2. Within 2 weeks production was LESS than previous.


The most you can do is 10 days in a row on a continuous basis. I know because I've done it.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 11, 2020)

pbehn said:


> In general no factory can work 24/7 week after week, I never worked at one that did. Machines need maintaining, if you don't stop and do it properly very quickly things break or malfunction. Also when at war, as well as working 12 hrs many were working in other roles as volunteers and others were kept awake by raids and having to move from bombed out houses, some were killed and injured.


I have worked in a factory that operated 24/7. They're still out there. So they close for 2 weeks per year for maintenance.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 11, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> Okay let's give a start date for the BoB of 26 June 1940 when the Luftwaffe started their nuisance raids. This follows a week after Churchill's "the battle of France is over, the Battle of Britain has begun". So from w/e July 29th to w/e November 2nd, 1135 Hurricanes and 595 Spitfires were produced plus 40 Canadian Hurricanes. Also 278 Mohawks were received from France and USA and held at maintenance units. An average of 450 single seat single engine fighters pcm which matches my figures. The Germans regard the BoB as ending when the Blitz ended. The figure I've seen is that a squadron in the front line will use up, 50 aircraft every 6 months. So if at the end of the BoB, the official figure is 900 losses then clearly this is economical with the truth as 1800 must have been lost. Between w/e April 6th and w/e 22nd June, 206 Spitfires and 632 Hurricanes were produced. So how many were lost over France and Belgium? 500 or so?


I really don't know what your point is. In terms of a battle the figures normally quoted would be those lost in battle with the enemy. People don't quote infantry losses including those run over by a bus in London on leave (as happened to my wifes great uncle). As I have explained 1800 were lost, actually more, some parts of aircraft may have been lost many times and recycled while others were lost before they were ever received by the RAF. I believe Al Deere was involved in 7 aircraft write offs in France and the BoB. Spitfires weren't just used for the BoB in the BoB they were used to train pilots and there were many aircraft and pilots lost even with experienced pilots like the Poles forgetting to put down landing gear just as the pilot who first displayed a Spitfire to the public did.. Also there were PR Spitfires the first MkIII of 40 ordered entered service in March 1940.


----------



## Conslaw (Jun 11, 2020)

The CAC Boomerang was pretty bad, but they "only" made about 250 of them.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 11, 2020)

I wish I could think of one that y'all missed, but the selection criteria make that difficult.

EDIT: moved the biplanes to the lower list

*Here is my list, within the criteria:*
MiG-3 - I believe it had the worst record of all the Soviet fighters in the first year of the war. Very slow at low altitude and terrible handling.
LaGG-1/3 - Seemed to have the worst production quality of the early Soviet fighters (which is saying something). Too heavy. Eventually improved and also led to La 5 series.
MS. 406 - Good for when it first came out, .
Bloch 150 / 152 - Poor handling, inherent instability, power plant problems.
Fiat G.50 - not a terrible design but too temperamental and fragile.
PZL P.11 - good for when it came out, with some advanced features, but not quite up to par

CAC Wirraway (to the extent it was used as a fighter, though most weren't so it probably doesn't qualify)

*Worst if you include biplanes, 2 crew, 2 engines, and / or drop the production criteria to 250+:*
I-153 - Used in numbers far too late for a biplane. Too slow. Took horrific losses.
CR 32 - Obsolete by WW2
CR 42 - Obsolete. Came out too late for a biplane. Too slow.
Gladiator - Good design, obsolete by WW2, still held it's own for the first few months
Blakburn Skua / Roc - just barely effective for the first few months of the war, after that it was really marginal. The only thing that saved it was short legs of German land based fighters.
Boulton Paul Defiant - zany idea that was doomed to fail. Turret had some potential but enabling it to shoot forward was too complex. Zany.
Fairey Fulmar - Bad design spec. Not only unable to handle enemy fighters, but too slow and too low flying to intercept enemy bombers half the time. They should have made a few of these for long range recon / navigation / pathfinding, and made a single-seat version with a smaller wing as the main CAP / Escort fighter.
Fairey Firefly - Waste of a powerful engine! Too slow for when it came out!
Me 210 - Bad wing. Fixed (too late) with 410.
P-51A - Poor aileron design contributed to a very lackluster combat record as a fighter. The British had luck with the similar Mustang I (etc.) for recon. Fixed with the P-51B etc.
PZL P.24 - Similar to PZL 11, not quite enough, gull wing design was probably the main issue besides engines
Caudron 710 - Too slow
Me 110 - had potential as a night fighter but it never reached it's intended potential as a longer ranged day fighter and was basically a waste of resources
Ki-45 - similar problems to Me 110
Bristol Blenheim "fighter"

*Worst in 50+ category:*
VL Myrsky - Bad design all around
CAC Boomerang - bad concept poorly executed.
P-400 - marginal early version of P-39 made worse by design changes and lack of certain parts / supplies (O2)

Obviously some of these were bad because they were just obsolete. They weren't so bad earlier in the war. Others were bad because of just bad design requirements. And others started out bad but got a lot better. There were also a lot of planes which looked like good designs on paper but couldn't be made to function in a war environment. Most of the late war Japanese fighters fall into that category, as do a lot of the German jets and rockets.

I would say the I-16 wasn't quite in the bottom category because though many died flying it, there seemed to be a higher percentage of Soviet pilots (many future aces) who kind of got the knack of fighting with it and managed to score a few victories in spite of it's flaws, and survive until they got something better. The later marks were able to manage over 300 mph, and by the time you get to the later model I-16s with the 20mm guns they were just below the threshold of competitive in the hands of a good pilot. Speed was close and their agility and small size helped (some of) them survive. The I-15 / 153 by comparison was just too slow, hyper-maneuverability helped a bit but not enough to survive that brutal battlefield.

There were also other planes which had a really long and painful teething process, starting out bad though ending up pretty good. The P-38, Corsair, and Typhoon would fit in that category IMO. P-38 issues are well known, the Corsair had a lot of small problems which added up to a maintenance nightmare particularly in the Pacific. Of course it got better though.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Jun 11, 2020)

Conslaw said:


> The CAC Boomerang was pretty bad, but they "only" made about 250 of them.
> View attachment 584805


I always thought the exhaust looked pretty badass.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 11, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> I always thought the exhaust looked pretty badass.


Looks like it was stolen from the Grease or Batman 
movie and had the red yellow and white paint stripped off.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Csch605 (Jun 11, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Depends who you talk to - Pilot reports state it was difficult to take off and land but made a good account of itself over Spain until the Bf109 came along and it held it's own during the Nomonhan Incident. Once it's flight characteristics were mastered, it was a good fighter for it's day. It was also one of the first, if not the first aircraft to achieve an aerial kill with a missile (unguided).


Missle, that is really good info, I saw they carried a somewhat more sophisticated rocket than the other allies. If they could see a large formation and let loose a volley that is very believable.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 11, 2020)

Schweik said:


> *Here is my list, within the criteria:*
> I-153 - Used in numbers far too late for a *biplane*. Too slow. Took horrific losses.
> CR 32 - Obsolete by WW2
> CR 42 - Obsolete. Came out too late for a *biplane*. Too slow.
> Gladiator - Good design, obsolete by WW2, still held it's own for the first few months



Here is the criteria:


Admiral Beez said:


> Which is the worst mass produced (>500 units), *monoplane*, single-engine, single-seat, retractable undercarriage fighter of WW2? By "mass" produced I'm setting a limit of at least 500 units, so no Vultee Vanguards and its <150 units. The Buffalo stands out, but the Finns did very well with theirs.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 11, 2020)

wuzak said:


> Here is the criteria:


Ha. Sometimes I think these threads are an intelligence and attention ability test.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Jun 11, 2020)

Ok, let’s try this one:

Brewster F3A-1 (Brewster built Corsair)

so poorly built that it was redlined for speed and prohibited from acrobatics. 700 built. Not a bad design but a bad manufacturer.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 11, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> Ok, let’s try this one:
> 
> Brewster F3A-1 (Brewster built Corsair)
> 
> so poorly built that it was redlined for speed and prohibited from acrobatics. 700 built. Not a bad design but a bad manufacturer.



We may need another thread "Worst mass producers of monoplane, single-engine, single-seat, retractable undercarriage fighter of WW2?" The trouble is that it would be very short.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 11, 2020)

wuzak said:


> Here is the criteria:



Ok, ok, modified the list. Don't get your panties in a bundle...


----------



## Schweik (Jun 11, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Ha. Sometimes I think these threads are an intelligence and attention ability test.



Or just vision, I was reading the thread & posted from my phone. Sorry, my eyes aren't what they used to be.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 11, 2020)

Considering the need to shoot down enemy aircraft, which of this category has the weakest armament? For example, the first few versions of the Ki-43 Oscar had just two machine guns, starting with a pair of .303s like an old biplane. Did any fighter in this category do any worse than that?


----------



## Schweik (Jun 11, 2020)

And yet, the Ki-43 was deadly as hell


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 12, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Considering the need to shoot down enemy aircraft, which of this category has the weakest armament? For example, the first few versions of the Ki-43 Oscar had just two machine guns, starting with a pair of .303s like an old biplane. Did any fighter in this category do any worse than that?


Yes, the La-5F with one cannon and a turbo behind the pilot. Ten built, distributed around key strategic locations. Designed for use against the Ju 388.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 12, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> Yes, the La-5F....*Ten* built,


Alright folks, do we need a cognition and literacy test before we post?


Admiral Beez said:


> Which is the worst mass produced *(>500 units)*, monoplane, single-engine, single-seat, retractable undercarriage fighter of WW2?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 12, 2020)

Schweik said:


> And yet, the Ki-43 was deadly as hell


I'll have to dig out my Bloody Shambles, but IIRC even the Buffalo had good kill ratios against the Oscar. Of course a few dozen Bufffaloes would be overwhelmed by the number of Oscars. I suppose any aircraft in this category is deadly.

This vid of the Oscar is well done. I’ll do some reading on the Buffalo and see if I can find any references to Oscar kills.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 12, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Alright folks, do we need a cognition and literacy test before we post?



What does "cognition" mean?



I'll get my coat!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 12, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Alright folks, do we need a cognition and literacy test before we post?


Look there were about 10k La-5's built.


----------



## Timppa (Jun 12, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> Ok, let’s try this one:
> Brewster F3A-1 (Brewster built Corsair)
> so poorly built that it was redlined for speed and prohibited from acrobatics. 700 built. Not a bad design but a bad manufacturer.



"Brewster production and engineering test pilot Ralph O. Romaine said, “From the feedback we received from the Aircraft Delivery Units of the US Navy,the Brewster Corsairs were considered of very high quality and trouble-free."

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 12, 2020)

Timppa said:


> "Brewster production and engineering test pilot Ralph O. Romaine said, “From the feedback we received from the Aircraft Delivery Units of the US Navy,the Brewster Corsairs were considered of very high quality and trouble-free."


So what went wrong?


----------



## NevadaK (Jun 12, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> So what went wrong?


That is a good question and I have been trying to locate better information that good ole' wikipedia. What I find is conflicting, but I will keep looking.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 12, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> So what went wrong?


Nothing. There weren’t enough of them. Five squadrons of Buffaloes, with a stark deficit of trained and experienced pilots operating from unprepared and poorly defended airstrips were tasked to defend a territory larger than the entire UK (defended by ~100 fighter squadrons in Dec 1941) against a much larger force of the IJAF’s best aircraft and experienced aircrew.

Replace those Buffaloes with five squadrons of the latest Spitfire variant and it will make no difference. But give Malaya twenty or thirty squadrons of Buffaloes and (since there aren’t enough Buffaloes) Mohawks and the Japanese will face at least credible opposition. Of course, even if the RAF fighter aircraft could be had, there’s still the shortage of pilots, ground personnel and poorly sited and prepared airfields. The loss of Malaya was not the Buffaloes fault.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 12, 2020)

*Guns of the top 6 candidates:*

EDIT: corrected armament of the Bloch

*MiG-3 *- Started out with a heavy armament of 2 x LMG and 3 x HMG, this was reduced on some aircraft to save weight to 1 x HMG and 2 x LMG or even 1 and 1, but it didn't help much.
*LaGG-1/3 *- Also started with heavyish armament of up to 5 machine guns, ended up with 1 x hub 20mm ShVAK hub cannon and 1 or 2 x HMG or LMG. Still fairly potent by early war standards.
*MS. 406 *- One hub mounted Hispano 20mm cannon (60 rounds) and two LMG
*Bloch 150 / 152 *- Two wing-mounted Hispano 20mm cannon (60 rounds) and two or four x LMG
*Fiat G.50 *- Two HMG
*PZL P.11* - Two to four LMG

So of those, I would say the P.11 and G.50 were the least heavily armed, though not necessarily the worst fighters of the group. The I-16 by the way, was armed with just two LMG in the Spanish Civil War but most variants that faced the Germans had 2 x 20mm ShVAK cannon plus 2 x LMGs, all in the wings. Soviet cannon were quite good, their HMG were good, their ShKAS LMGs were superb. The Breda HMG in the Fiat were considered pretty bad, slow firing and relatively lightweight ammo for the caliber.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 12, 2020)

Big challenge there was to balance the need for firepower with the weight limitations of a 600 - 900 hp engine. As the engines got more powerful, some of these aircraft became much more effective.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 12, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Nothing. There weren’t enough of them. Five squadrons of Buffaloes, with a stark deficit of trained and experienced pilots operating from unprepared and poorly defended airstrips were tasked to defend a territory larger than the entire UK (defended by ~100 fighter squadrons in Dec 1941) against a much larger force of the IJAF’s best aircraft and experienced aircrew.
> 
> Replace those Buffaloes with five squadrons of the latest Spitfire variant and it will make no difference. But give Malaya twenty or thirty squadrons of Buffaloes and (since there aren’t enough Buffaloes) Mohawks and the Japanese will face at least credible opposition. Of course, even if the RAF fighter aircraft could be had, there’s still the shortage of pilots, ground personnel and poorly sited and prepared airfields. The loss of Malaya was not the Buffaloes fault.



I think he's referring to Brewster's licence production of the F4U Corsair and not to the Buffalos.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 12, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> I think he's referring to Brewster's licence production of the F4U Corsair and not to the Buffalos.


Ah, true. I didn’t know Brewster made Corsairs. Did they make the FAA’s clipped wing variety? I’ve wondered what a USN/MC pilot would think of the RN’s bird.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 12, 2020)

This pretty little thing was actually their worst aircraft, though it wasn't a fighter...







Brewster SB2A Buccaneer - Wikipedia


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 12, 2020)

Schweik said:


> This pretty little thing was actually their worst aircraft, though it wasn't a fighter...
> 
> View attachment 584939
> 
> ...


The Brits did get their share of Brewster products.






I wonder if the FAA ever thought to put it on the RN’s carriers in those desperate early days.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 12, 2020)

Delivery to the FAA only began in July 1942 so hardly "desperate early days". It never served operationally on a British carrier.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 12, 2020)

Schweik said:


> *Bloch 150 / 152 *- One hub mounted Hispano 20mm cannon (60 rounds) and two or four x LMG



Wiki says two 20mm and two or four 7.5mm. 

And since the engine was a radial, they weren't hub mounted.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 12, 2020)

Could the Bismarck and Tirpitz be included? heavily armed and good at low level with advanced RADAR?


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 12, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> Delivery to the FAA only began in July 1942 so hardly "desperate early days". It never served operationally on a British carrier.


I wonder which the FAA rejected faster, the Bermuda or Chesapeake. The latter might have been useful in Malaya with the RAF as a CAS bomber.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 13, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Nothing. There weren’t enough of them. Five squadrons of Buffaloes, with a stark deficit of trained and experienced pilots operating from unprepared and poorly defended airstrips were tasked to defend a territory larger than the entire UK (defended by ~100 fighter squadrons in Dec 1941) against a much larger force of the IJAF’s best aircraft and experienced aircrew.
> 
> Replace those Buffaloes with five squadrons of the latest Spitfire variant and it will make no difference. But give Malaya twenty or thirty squadrons of Buffaloes and (since there aren’t enough Buffaloes) Mohawks and the Japanese will face at least credible opposition. Of course, even if the RAF fighter aircraft could be had, there’s still the shortage of pilots, ground personnel and poorly sited and prepared airfields. The loss of Malaya was not the Buffaloes fault.


The reason that I have to disagree is that there is no radar cover north of Kuala Lumpur and no Observer Corps at all. Perhaps this is why Percival got the job, he had experience of how to retreat to the sea successfully to Dunkirk. We would have been better off scuttling HMS Repulse in Penang Harbour then at least Penang would have radar and could give fire support to our Imperial forces in Malaya. HMS POW should have been assigned to support HMS Indomitable when it arrived. Then together to steam up to the Japanese beachheads to attack them cutting off the Japanese forces from further supplies.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 13, 2020)

wuzak said:


> Wiki says two 20mm and two or four 7.5mm.
> 
> And since the engine was a radial, they weren't hub mounted.



You are right, my bad - those 20mm on the Bloch were definitely wing mounted. I just copied my own previous line from the MS 406 out of haste. The MB 152 was the most heavily armed of that list.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 13, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> I wonder which the FAA rejected faster, the Bermuda or Chesapeake. The latter might have been useful in Malaya with the RAF as a CAS bomber.



The Chesapeake was the better of the two, being marginally functional vs. a complete non-starter like the Bermuda. Vindicators (Chesapeake) were actually used at Midway, though it's unclear if they got any hits.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 13, 2020)

I've two candidate the MS.406 and the G.50, maybe also the I-16 but it worked fine in Spain and in the Soviet-Japanese clash of '39

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 13, 2020)

Though they took apaaling losses, there are also a significant number of Soviet Aces who made Ace fighting against the Germans in the I-16. It was obsolescent and difficult to fly but I think in the hands of a good pilot it could do surprisingly well. Against a BF 109E or a Bf 110 it wasn't such a bad match on paper, though it was really in trouble against a 109F. Still probably better than the B-229 or Hawk 75 that the Finns liked so much. The I-16 had similar performance and maneuverability but was much more heavily armed and had armor and self-sealing fuel tanks.

The bigger problems with the VVS early on was with pilot training, tactics and lack of radios. Their biggest problem with their fighters was more an issue of build quality.

Compared to the newer generation of fighters, MiG 3, LaGG 3, and Yak-1, the I-16s were also being built to a better quality standard for the most part, as the factories making them were not as new and the workers a bit more experienced. They had already been making them for 7 years by the time the war started. It was at least a year before build quality of the newer fighter designs began to catch up.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 13, 2020)

I wonder if they could have 'fixed' the I-16 by just stretching it out about three feet and maybe putting an enclosed cockpit.


----------



## ssnider (Jun 13, 2020)

Schweik said:


> I wonder if they could have 'fixed' the I-16 by just stretching it out about three feet and maybe putting an enclosed cockpit.


That would be the I-180. canceled in prototype stage and factory used to make the lagg-3

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 13, 2020)

Schweik said:


> The Chesapeake was the better of the two, being marginally functional vs. a complete non-starter like the Bermuda. Vindicators (Chesapeake) were actually used at Midway, though it's unclear if they got any hits.


TSR biplanes and retrofitted Fulmars aside, I suppose, after the Skua was removed, any decently competent monoplane, retractable undercarriage dive-bomber would have been welcome on RN carriers.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 13, 2020)

One of the big "what if's" of the War I gather. Polikarpov fell out of favor with Uncle Joe.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 13, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> TSR biplanes and retrofitted Fulmars aside, I suppose, after the Skua was removed, any decently competent monoplane, retractable undercarriage dive-bomber would have been welcome on RN carriers.



Doesn't seem lke RN got a lot of SBD's, do you know why? Maybe they thought their range was too short...? Those were the by far the most effective early war navy strike planes.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 13, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Still probably better than the B-229 or Hawk 75 that the Finns liked so much. The I-16 had similar performance and maneuverability but was much more heavily armed and had armor and self-sealing fuel tanks.



Experience over Finland would suggest not. The most common kills by Finnish pilots, in descending order, were the SB-2, DB-3, I-16 and I-153. Seems like the I-16 suffered rather badly at the hands of the B-239 and H-75 flown by the Finns.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 13, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Doesn't seem lke RN got a lot of SBD's, do you know why? Maybe they thought their range was too short...? Those were the by far the most effective early war navy strike planes.


I think the small CAG needed multipurpose types, so Stringbags and Applecores that could partially dive bomb and also carry a torpedo was deemed best.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 13, 2020)

SBDs didn't have folding wings.

I-16s came with a variety of armaments and many had just four 7.62mm guns. 

The versions with a 20mm in each wing were not that common and the some of the last I-16s built used /a synchronized 12.7 in the fuselage with a pair of 7.62mm's.
The earlier 20mm gunships used against the Japanese were effective but the Japanese planes in use at the time did not need 20mm guns to destroy them and the extra weight affected the speed and maneuverability.

I-16s were noted for being rather poor gun platforms, they snaked in flight.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 13, 2020)

The 4 gun I-16 was armed with ShKAS's , 1800 rpm per gun, for 7200 rpm for the 4 guns.

Not far from the 9600 rpm of a 8 gun Hurricane or Spitfire .


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 13, 2020)

The synchronized guns in the fuselage were bit slower. But the four gun I-16 was probably comparable to a six gun Hawk 75. (whose cowl guns also fired a bit slower than the wing guns).

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tengu1979 (Jun 14, 2020)

Schweik said:


> *Guns of the top 6 candidates:*
> 
> EDIT: corrected armament of the Bloch
> 
> ...


P-11 doestm meet criteria of retractable undercarriage and closed cockpit. As for armament P. 11a and b had only two MGs. P11c (and not really built g variant) had 4 but 2 of them were field removed to Save weight andimprove speed.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 14, 2020)

Could the Boulton Paul Defiant have been made less awful by removing the turret or was the production run over when realized it stunk?


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 14, 2020)

... and keeping in the spirit, 2 .303 caliber wing guns instead.


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 14, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Could the Boulton Paul Defiant have been made less awful by removing the turret or was the production run over when realized it stunk?



Removing the ton or so of turret and its drag wouldn't hurt performance, but it would still be far too much airframe for its role.

I think "turret fighter" was one of those concepts which made some sense on paper but the Defiant, like its closest US counterpart, the FM-1, was an idea which was intrinsically flawed. If anything, the Defiant was, at least, a competently designed airframe.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 14, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> Removing the ton or so of turret and its drag wouldn't hurt performance, but it would still be far too much airframe for its role.
> 
> I think "turret fighter" was one of those concepts which made some sense on paper but the Defiant, like its closest US counterpart, the FM-1, was an idea which was intrinsically flawed. If anything, the Defiant was, at least, a competently designed airframe.


So a simple “chopping off” a length for balance wouldn’t have helped (center of gravity)? I was thinking of improving a bad plane by taking stuff out and using less critical materials. 
I never knew the FM-1 was not an improvement.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 14, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> So a simple “chopping off” a length for balance wouldn’t have helped (center of gravity)? I was thinking of improving a bad plane by taking stuff out and using less critical materials.
> I never knew the FM-1 was not an improvement.



The Defiant wasn't a bad plane. It was a good design that met a flawed specification.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 14, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> The Defiant wasn't a bad plane. It was a good design that met a flawed specification.


I think you just explained the reason for most of the awful aircraft ever built.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 14, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> So a simple “chopping off” a length for balance wouldn’t have helped (center of gravity)? I was thinking of improving a bad plane by taking stuff out and using less critical materials.
> I never knew the FM-1 was not an improvement.



It was the Bell FM-1, a bomber destroyer that was slower than the bombers it was supposed to shoot down. It doesn't fit the criteria for this thread, as it had a crew of five , two engines (plus an APU that powered everything, including the fuel pumps supplying the engines), and (thank God!) only about a dozen were built. It did have retractable gear, though.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 14, 2020)

I thought you meant the GM built Wildcat. I forgot about the Aircuda. It was called the Aircuda, right?


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 14, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> I thought you meant the GM built Wildcat. I forgot about the Aircuda. It was called the Aircuda, right?



I think it was Airacuda, but no matter.

The Defiant was a good design to a bad spec; the Airacuda was a poor design to a bad spec.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 15, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> I think it was Airacuda, but no matter.
> 
> The Defiant was a good design to a bad spec; the Airacuda was a poor design to a bad spec.


At least with both the Defiant and Roc, you ended ended up with some useful target tugs.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## TheMadPenguin (Jun 15, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Could the Bismarck and Tirpitz be included? heavily armed and good at low level with advanced RADAR?


No.
<500 built, and no retractable undercarriage.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 15, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> I'll have to dig out my Bloody Shambles, but IIRC even the Buffalo had good kill ratios against the Oscar. Of course a few dozen Bufffaloes would be overwhelmed by the number of Oscars. I suppose any aircraft in this category is deadly.
> 
> This vid of the Oscar is well done. I’ll do some reading on the Buffalo and see if I can find any references to Oscar kills.



The Oscar did quite well against most Allied fighter opposition. Especially the Buffalo.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 15, 2020)

tengu1979 said:


> P-11 doestm meet criteria of retractable undercarriage and closed cockpit. As for armament P. 11a and b had only two MGs. P11c (and not really built g variant) had 4 but 2 of them were field removed to Save weight andimprove speed.



Well if that is the case why are they talking about the I-16? Most of them were open cockpit.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 15, 2020)

I just found a thread from October, 2019 “Single seat Defiant”. 
You’re right Shortround6. It gives us nothing.


----------



## NevadaK (Jun 15, 2020)

TheMadPenguin said:


> No.
> <500 built, and no retractable undercarriage.


And yet, somehow the Japanese managed to pull it off. Just too late to turn the tide of the war.....

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## TheMadPenguin (Jun 15, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> And yet, somehow the Japanese managed to pull it off. Just too late to turn the tide of the war.....
> View attachment 585138


That's a Yamato-class ship. Not a Bismark class.
And there are <500 of either class, nor do they have retractable landing gear.

As for turning the tide of war: They'd not need oil, having controlled fusion; nor would they lack for metal ores since the whole asteroid belt is open to them; and sinking our whole fleet would be tossing grenades into a barrel of fish.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Jun 15, 2020)

TheMadPenguin said:


> That's a Yamato-class ship. Not a Bismark class.
> And there are <500 of either class, nor do they have retractable landing gear.


Touche!


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 15, 2020)

TheMadPenguin said:


> No.
> <500 built, and no retractable undercarriage.



Also, they didn't have one-man crews and had multiple engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 15, 2020)

I think the Spaceship Yamato did not have any landing gear though, fixed or otherwise. Once it was launched it stayed aloft forever.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 15, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> At least with both the Defiant and Roc, you ended ended up with some useful target tugs.



I don't think it's an apt comparison really, "Airacuda" considering two pusher engines, high caliber guns, 5 crew etc. etc. , was a much more radical experiment as a fighter (or 'bomber destroyer') and a much bigger aircraft, but it (almost literally) never got off the ground. It was little more than a weird experiment, which nobody was dumb enough to put into regular production, only 12 were made and it only ever equipped a single experimental squadron. It was considered so unreliable they never flew without chase planes. Defiant was much more widely used, until 1942, and they built 1,000 of them...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 15, 2020)

It’s officially Space Battleship Yamato. It could land on large bodies of water making it a flying “boat”.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 15, 2020)

Schweik said:


> I don't think it's an apt comparison really, "Airacuda" considering two pusher engines, high caliber guns, 5 crew etc. etc. , was a much more radical experiment as a fighter (or 'bomber destroyer') and a much bigger aircraft, but it (almost literally) never got off the ground. It was little more than a weird experiment, which nobody was dumb enough to put into regular production, only 12 were made and it only ever equipped a single experimental squadron. It was considered so unreliable they never flew without chase planes. Defiant was much more widely used, until 1942, and they built 1,000 of them...



It was still, in my opinion, a poor design. Why? Leaving aside the armament, the idea of using a single APU to power all the electrical systems on the aircraft, _including the electric fuel pumps needed to keep the engines running_, was, at best, misguided and tends to approach the blatantly stupid.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 15, 2020)

It looked cool.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 15, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> It was still, in my opinion, a poor design. Why? Leaving aside the armament, the idea of using a single APU to power all the electrical systems on the aircraft, _including the electric fuel pumps needed to keep the engines running_, was, at best, misguided and tends to approach the blatantly stupid.



I agree! It was a terrible design. Maybe more precisely a huge design overreach that shouldn't have gone past the back of a napkin phase. Totally agree about the APU. But luckily for it's potential aircrew and the overall war effort, it was basically strangled in the crib. And it was kinda cool looking...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 15, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Well if that is the case why are they talking about the I-16? Most of them were open cockpit.
> 
> View attachment 585137


I don't know which they made more of.
The I-16 had a strange sort of canopy, the windscreen and sides were one piece, and slide forward, so lots of time in pictures you're actually looking at a I-16 with a enclosed canopy. but it's slid forward and open.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 15, 2020)

I believe the I-16’s canopy was defective. It would slam shut at the wrong time. The VVS just fixed them to stay open.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 15, 2020)

During the first year or so of their manufacture, the later Gen Soviet fighters, LaGG-3, Yak-1, Yak 7 etc. were often flown with the canopy off because they were known to get stuck in flight and pilots were scared of being trapped inside in the event of their aircraft being heavily damaged or suffering engine failure. This cost something like 100 kph in speed so needless to say, it was a 'drag'...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NICKVB (Jun 16, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Which is the worst mass produced (>500 units), monoplane, single-engine, single-seat, retractable undercarriage fighter of WW2? By "mass" produced I'm setting a limit of at least 500 units, so no Vultee Vanguards and its <150 units. The Buffalo stands out, but the Finns did very well with theirs.


The real worst - however it did not make it in really large quantities due to the German invasion of France - has to be the Caudron C.714. The Finnish Ilmavuoimat received some and gave up on them, sos did the Polish suadrons that were given tho them in France after the invasion of Poland.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 16, 2020)

NICKVB said:


> The real worst - however it did not make it in really large quantities due to the German invasion of France - has to be the Caudron C.714. The Finnish Ilmavuoimat received some and gave up on them, sos did the Polish suadrons that were given tho them in France after the invasion of Poland.


I challenge the utility of the light fighter concept. You might be able to avoid using strategic metals, etc... but scrimping on fighter aircraft during peacetime rearmament in a leading (albeit reduced after WW1 and the depression) industrial power like France is not the place to look for such savings. You still need the armament, engine, production capacity and that most important component, the pilot to make the light fighter work. Instead of making 100 Caudrons force the factory to make 25-50 D.520s or anything else that's competitive.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 16, 2020)

A two-seat version of the C.714 would make a great advanced trainer. 

The entire light-weight fighter concept of the 1930s was flawed, as the LWF couldn't be that much smaller than a normal-weight fighter -- you still have to fit a sitting pilot, for one thing -- and the savings from a small engine tends to preclude the performance needed to perform its missions. I know that the F-16 and F-17/F-18 were called "light-weight" fighters, but that was only in comparison with the F-14/F-15, which were definite heavyweights.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 16, 2020)

There seems to be a sweet spot that nobody pulled off during wartime for purpose-built 'light interceptors', the Caudron and the CW 21 were both failed efforts basically. But there were several other examples that kind of fit into that niche and were quite successful. Lets not forget, the Mosquito was designed to be a 'lightweight' bomber made of wood to save on strategic materials like duralumin which worked out fantastically as both a bomber and a fighter (and a recon, maritime patrol, intruder, and in many other roles). Many of the Soviet fighters were basically made along these same lines (lightweight due to relatively weak engines, using wood to save on aluminum and other strategic materials) and while they really struggled on both the design and (particularly) manufacturing level in the early war, the Yak series certainly turned out to be quite successful by the end, in fact the lightest (I think ?) version, the Yak 3, was widely considered one of the best fighters of the war, though at roughly 5,000 lbs they are on the limit of what would be considered a lightweight fighter by early war standards, by the later war they certainly were (compare to a P-51).

But in terms of weight you can get a lot closer to those two famous designs and find some successful examples. I think you could make a case for some of the biplanes like the Gladiator, I-153 and CR 42 being held over for production, (as well as the monoplane I-16) as being at least somewhat effective 'light fighters' - the Gladiator in particular worked both for point defense (as in Malta) and as a carrier aircraft. In the Pacific you have the Ki-27 "Nate" and the A5M4 which are actually lighter weight than the aforementioned 'light fighters' and were really quite successful, and helpful to have in the inventory, at least for a while. The Ki-27 in particular proved quite deadly against Allied aircraft, it wasn't until P-40s showed up that they started taking unacceptably heavy losses, but they were still being used here and there into 1944. Same could be said for the CR 42 and even the CR 32 in the early days of the fighting in North Africa and elsewhere around the Med. They did some effective work with those fighters.

There was another niche for obsolescent but lightweight aircraft being held over for mainly point defense and sometimes CAS duties, and these include the I-153 and I-16 which were both notoriously outgunned in Russia but as has been pointed out, they did still have some value. The Curtiss Hawk family of fighters was used with some success in places like India and Burma, until quite late in the war. The Axis made similar use of the French D.520 fighter, the Italians and Bulgarians both made some effective use of it mainly for point defense - the Bulgarian D.520 pilots even claimed some B-24s and a couple of P-38s during raids in 1943 and 1944. Compared to a P-38 a D.520 does qualify as a light point defense fighter I'd say. They seemed pretty effective until the bomber raids were escorted by P-51s. Another kind of similar example to the D.520 is the Romanian IAR.80, a nice looking low-wing monoplane developed via circuitous paths from the Polish P.11. They had some success as point defense fighters in raids by B-24s and P-38s, claiming several victories and helping to smash up a couple of those ill-fated Ploesti missions.

Finally there are also the float plane fighters, which act as tertiary battle area point defense fighters, a good example being the F1M 'Pete' which played a useful role in a few engagements, in spite of it's short range. It was basically a point defense against recon planes and unescorted bombers.

Most of these couldn't quite compete against the top level enemy fighter opposition, but as we know in many battle areas of the war either due to range or limited numbers, those were not always available. In those kind of remote or tertiary / secondary battlefield areas a light fighter did seem pretty viable, and some like the Ki-27 punched far above their weight I'd say. Even the Ki-43 qualified as a 'light fighter' by European or American standards, and yet look how many Allied planes they shot down with it. In modern times, sometimes the 'interim' or 'light' fighter designs work out to be fantastic successes compared to a lot of heavier boondogles which never worked out but racked up design and production costs to a dangerous extent. Aside from the wildly successful F-16 (compare that to say, the F-111) I think you could point to the A-4 Skyhawk perhaps, and maybe the MiG -21 and Mirage III, though I admit I don't know enough about the latter two systems design history to say for sure if they merit the category.

CW 21 *Empty weight:* 3,382 lb (1,534 kg)
Caudron *Empty weight:* 3,075 lb (1,395 kg)

Ki-27 *Empty weight:* 2,447 lb (1,110 kg)
A5M4 *Empty weight:* 2,681 lb (1,216 kg)
Gladiator *Empty weight:* 3,217 lb (1,459 kg)
I-153 *Empty weight:* 3,201 lb (1,452 kg)
I-16 *Empty weight:* 3,285 lb (1,490 kg)
CR 32 *Empty weight:* 3,208 lb (1,455 kg)
CR 42 *Empty weight:* 3,929 lb (1,782 kg)
Ki-43 *Empty weight:* 4,211 lb (1,910 kg)
F1M *Empty weight:* 4,251 lb (1,928 kg)
P-36 *Empty weight:* 4,567 lb (2,072 kg)
D.520 *Empty weight:* 4,680 lb (2,123 kg)
IAR.80 *Empty weight:* 4,850 lb (2,200 kg)

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 16, 2020)

Schweik said:


> There seems to be a sweet spot that nobody pulled off during wartime for purpose-built 'light interceptors', the Caudron and the CW 21 were both failed efforts basically. But there were several other examples that kind of fit into that niche and were quite successful. Lets not forget, the Mosquito was designed to be a 'lightweight' bomber made of wood to save on strategic materials like duralumin which worked out fantastically as both a bomber and a fighter (and a recon, maritime patrol, intruder, and in many other roles). Many of the Soviet fighters were basically made along these same lines (lightweight due to relatively weak engines, using wood to save on aluminum and other strategic materials) and while they really struggled on both the design and (particularly) manufacturing level in the early war, the Yak series certainly turned out to be quite successful by the end, in fact the lightest (I think ?) version, the Yak 3, was widely considered one of the best fighters of the war, though at roughly 5,000 lbs they are on the limit of what would be considered a lightweight fighter by early war standards, by the later war they certainly were (compare to a P-51).
> 
> But in terms of weight you can get a lot closer to those two famous designs and find some successful examples. I think you could make a case for some of the biplanes like the Gladiator, I-153 and CR 42 being held over for production, (as well as the monoplane I-16) as being at least somewhat effective 'light fighters' - the Gladiator in particular worked both for point defense (as in Malta) and as a carrier aircraft. In the Pacific you have the Ki-27 "Nate" and the A5M4 which are actually lighter weight than the aforementioned 'light fighters' and were really quite successful, and helpful to have in the inventory, at least for a while. The Ki-27 in particular proved quite deadly against Allied aircraft, it wasn't until P-40s showed up that they started taking unacceptably heavy losses, but they were still being used here and there into 1944. Same could be said for the CR 42 and even the CR 32 in the early days of the fighting in North Africa and elsewhere around the Med. They did some effective work with those fighters.
> 
> ...


I think cost, rather than empty weight is the better determinant of ROI.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 16, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> I think cost, rather than empty weight is the better determinant of ROI.



That is a little harder to precisely determine for each aircraft, but I daresay most of the ones on my list would qualify - even if some only because they were spoils of war or 'surplus' in the case of the Hawk 75. With the exception of the last two on my list they are also relatively cheap radial engines, which are usually cheaper and simpler to integrate into an airframe than in-line engines I think.

The biplanes all use fewer strategic materials as most have at least partly cloth covered fuselage. The I-153 and I-16 had been in production so long, cost was definitely lowered. I believe (but haven't checked) that both the Ki-27 and A5M were relatively cheap to make, with fixed landing gear etc. Certainly compared to some of the much more complex later war Japanese fighters.

P-36 / Hawk was probably pretty expensive for the French initially but it became surplus to the British (or did it, did the British have to pay the Yanks for their P-36s?), and I believe they were making some in India right ? By that time I do not think they would have been very expensive. Similarly the Ki-43 might have been kind of expensive early on but I believe the reason they continued making it was it was cheaper and more reliable than the later, theoretically more capable Japanese designs (Ki-61 etc.)

So overall, I doubt my list would change very much if you used cost as the dividing line. I was using #5,000 in weight. Cost in terms of expense of manufacturing would be one factor, but strategic materials are another big one, and on that level a #3,500 aircraft is using less material than a #7,000 lb aircraft in almost every case. I'm pretty sure a Ki-27 or CR 42 cost a lot less to make than a Fw 190.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 16, 2020)

In other words, (*TL : DR*) I think cost overlaps pretty closely with weight in this example.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 16, 2020)

Most of those planes also used relatively few guns, had little to no armor or protected fuel tanks (except later model I-16, IAR 80 and D.520) so that is also cheaper. Many had fixed undercarriage which also reduces cost.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ssnider (Jun 16, 2020)

F2A1 empty wt. 3785 lb.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 16, 2020)

There you go, Finnish version - a good example. No armor right?


----------



## ssnider (Jun 16, 2020)

Finnish version had armor plate added

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 17, 2020)

Quite a "bargain" then for the weight. Amazing that the one used in the PTO was almost 2,000 lbs heavier


----------



## Schweik (Jun 17, 2020)

My overall point is that there did indeed seem to be a niche for lightweight (under 5,000 lb empty) relatively cheap interceptors and maybe also CAS / "Frontal aviation" aircraft, in the early, middle and until quite late in the war. Where many front-line fighters were getting into the 7,000 - 10,000 lb range (and some up to 12,000 lbs or more), with extra souped up engines, multiple heavy guns, armor and self sealing tanks and so forth), some of these older fighters with fairly light armament, not too much armor and 1940-42 vintage engines, capable of operating at low to medium altitude, were still at least somewhat useful for both Allied and Axis air forces in many Theaters. In fact the Soviet fighters stayed pretty close to the 5,000 lb limit even after they got more powerful engines - Yak 3 was 5,172 lbs per Wikipedia, Yak 9 5,020). The Bf 109 also remained quite light, and the A6M would technically qualify as another 'light weight' fighter (at only 3,700 lbs empty for the A6M2), even though it was far more capable than most. The Spitfire through the Mk V remained under 5,000 empty, and maybe that is another reason why those were kept in production so long. Certainly useful to have some around for point defense.

When defending an airfield, an oil refinery, or operating right over the front lines, lighter cheaper fighters could be cost effective. Especially if fairly well trained pilots were available. Not all lighter weight aircraft fit the niche, but it does seem like there were more than a handful which did. So in theory something like this could have been designed to fit the niche even better, though maybe (per above) that is really what the Yak-3 and Bf 109 were.

Just another interesting angle from which to look at WW2 fighter aviation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 17, 2020)

The FM-2 version of the Wildcat is perhaps another example...


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 17, 2020)

Re: post #274. 
The mention of lighter cheaper point defense fighters made me think of the Natter. Perhaps that’s too extreme of an example.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 17, 2020)

It's another attempt to fill that niche, same as the Me 163 and a couple of other weird experiments.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## cherry blossom (Jun 17, 2020)

I have been trying to understand why the MS 406 was so bad and found discussions in "The Rise and Fall of the French Air Force" by Greg Baughen The Rise and Fall of the French Air Force which suggest that the studies of how to reduce drag from radiators occurring in both Germany and Britain (where it was associated with Meredith) and leading to the superb Mustang design, completely passed by French aviation. Belatedly in 1939, it was understood that the drag could be greatly reduced and it was planned to rebuild the already existing MS 406s to MS 410 standard with exhaust stubs and a new radiator. Unfortunately, only 5 MS 410s had been produced (by conversion) before France fell.

The Finns were able to make a conversion of their MS 406s with captured Klimov M-105P engines and also utilizing the MS 410 ideas (the Germans had sent them some captured MS 410s) and, according to Wikipedia, the Mörkö-Morane were 64 km/h (40 mph; 35kn) faster than the original French version (naturally this conversion was also mostly too late for the Continuation War).

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 17, 2020)

ssnider said:


> F2A1 empty wt. 3785 lb.





Schweik said:


> Quite a "bargain" then for the weight. Amazing that the one used in the PTO was almost 2,000 lbs heavier



Just make sure you are comparing like to like. 
Empty can mean really e-e-m-m-p-p-t-t-y-y or it can mean empty of fluids and ammo but fully equipped other wise. Sometimes called basic weight. 
AHT says the Brewster 239 weighed 3744lbs _empty. _I won't argue over 41lbs weight, some production planes varied more than that from serial number to serial number. 
However it added 443lbs of equipment, armament and crew for a two gun fighter and 585lbs of equipment, armament and crew for a four gun fighter (four guns are one .30 cal and three .50 cal guns) Empty equiped or basic weight being 4187lb and 4239lb respectively

By the way the ._empty weight _of the F2A-3 was 4732lbs so it was only about 1000lbs heavier empty. 
And if you compare like to like to like (four guns and 110 US gallons of fuel) the 239 and the F2A-3 were about 1045lbs apart when loaded. Granted you could load the F2A-3 down more. 

There are a number of reasons some countries used these "light" fighters. One was that they were already built and paid for which makes them really cheap. 
Continued production becomes more dubious however. 
We seem to be saying that all fighters are nearly equal in firepower for example. 
While a Ki 27 might well be cheap to build based on it's weight (and the power of it's engine) it's effectiveness against certain targets can certainly be called into question. 
It used two synchronized Vickers 7.7mm(.303) machine guns not too different from those used on a Sopwith Camel, rate of fire increased about 50%, or about 900rpm not accounting for the synchronization. Compare that to a Hurricane with eight guns. the Hurricane can deliver 5.3 to 6 times more bullets per second. the Ki 27 carries 1000 rounds of ammunition, the Hurricane carries around 2670. 
If you are trying to shoot down twin engine bombers with any sort of protection which fighter is actually going to be cheaper? If you need 3 light fighters to get the same amount of firepower into the battle area than the "heavy" fighter then they are not cheaper. You not only have to pay for the planes but you need more pilots and more ground crew.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 17, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Just make sure you are comparing like to like.
> Empty can mean really e-e-m-m-p-p-t-t-y-y or it can mean empty of fluids and ammo but fully equipped other wise. Sometimes called basic weight.
> AHT says the Brewster 239 weighed 3744lbs _empty. _I won't argue over 41lbs weight, some production planes varied more than that from serial number to serial number.
> However it added 443lbs of equipment, armament and crew for a two gun fighter and 585lbs of equipment, armament and crew for a four gun fighter (four guns are one .30 cal and three .50 cal guns) Empty equiped or basic weight being 4187lb and 4239lb respectively



It's a fair point - I really don't know how many of those weights mean "EMPTY empty" and how many include things like hydraulic fluid or whatever. So that could possible the change the list a little bit, I just pulled those from Wikipedia so they definitely could be off. The point still stands though. It's an interesting way to look at the obsolete fighters that were still used and those that continued to be manufactured - like Ki-43 or Spit V, or Hawk 75.



> By the way the ._empty weight _of the F2A-3 was 4732lbs so it was only about 1000lbs heavier empty.
> And if you compare like to like to like (four guns and 110 US gallons of fuel) the 239 and the F2A-3 were about 1045lbs apart when loaded. Granted you could load the F2A-3 down more.



That still seems like an awful lot heavier, especially if the Finnish one had armor. I'm guessing part of the difference was self sealing fuel tanks? More and bigger guns? What else accounts for 1,000 lbs? That's a lot! You'd need a significant boost in engine power to account for that.



> There are a number of reasons some countries used these "light" fighters. One was that they were already built and paid for which makes them really cheap.
> Continued production becomes more dubious however.
> We seem to be saying that all fighters are nearly equal in firepower for example.
> While a Ki 27 might well be cheap to build based on it's weight (and the power of it's engine) it's effectiveness against certain targets can certainly be called into question.
> It used two synchronized Vickers 7.7mm(.303) machine guns not too different from those used on a Sopwith Camel, rate of fire increased about 50%, or about 900rpm not accounting for the synchronization. Compare that to a Hurricane with eight guns. the Hurricane can deliver 5.3 to 6 times more bullets per second. the Ki 27 carries 1000 rounds of ammunition, the Hurricane carries around 2670.



Yeah but didn't Ki-27s do pretty well against Hurricanes?



> If you are trying to shoot down twin engine bombers with any sort of protection which fighter is actually going to be cheaper? If you need 3 light fighters to get the same amount of firepower into the battle area than the "heavy" fighter then they are not cheaper. You not only have to pay for the planes but you need more pilots and more ground crew.



Well, it depends on the bomber. If it's a TBD devastator or a TBF Avenger, an Albacore or Swordfish, or say, a Bristol Blenheim, then maybe a Nate is good enough. If they are sending something a bit more rugged or capable like fighter bombers, SBDs, A-20s, or B-25s then maybe if you have a bunch of 'Nates' defending your airfield then you can save your more modern fighters (Ki-43s or A6Ms) to go after the other bombers. In fact I think that is what they did sometimes.


----------



## ssnider (Jun 17, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Just make sure you are comparing like to like.
> Empty can mean really e-e-m-m-p-p-t-t-y-y or it can mean empty of fluids and ammo but fully equipped other wise. Sometimes called basic weight.
> AHT says the Brewster 239 weighed 3744lbs _empty. _I won't argue over 41lbs weight, some production planes varied more than that from serial number to serial number.
> However it added 443lbs of equipment, armament and crew for a two gun fighter and 585lbs of equipment, armament and crew for a four gun fighter (four guns are one .30 cal and three .50 cal guns) Empty equiped or basic weight being 4187lb and 4239lb respectively
> ...




The F2A1's as received by the Finish had the R-1820-G5 export version engine, hydraulic prop., 3 50 cal. MG and one 38 cal. MG. The 30 cal, was replaced by a 50 cal.MD in Finland. The tail hook, life raft etc, was removed and the tail wheel replaced with a larger (and higher drag) grass field friendly one. The Finnish also added piolet armor (do not know weight) and a German made reflector gun sight. In another thread on this forum is a detailed weight break down of weights for for almost all the Brewster's except for the 239. A significant part of the weight increase for the British planes was increased ammo capacity.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 17, 2020)

Schweik said:


> That still seems like an awful lot heavier, especially if the Finnish one had armor. I'm guessing part of the difference was self sealing fuel tanks? More and bigger guns? What else accounts for 1,000 lbs? That's a lot! You'd need a significant boost in engine power to account for that.


Part of the difference was the later plane got a much different engine. Not all R-1820s were created equal, The 239 got a direct drive engine that gave 950-1000hp at sea level at 2200rpm and 800hp at 16,000ft. The American F2A-2 & 3s got an R-1820 that was two generations newer, had a reduction gear, and ran at 2500rpm. 1200hp at sea level, I don't have the military power at altitude but max continuous was 900hp at 14,000ft. at 2300rpm. The new engine was about 180lbs heavier. The larger propeller was 77lbs heavier. the wing and landing gear both gained weight, in part to deal with the higher gross weights. 
The Foreign aircraft (French, Belgian, British, Dutch) got an the in between engine but it had a reduction gear and a larger propeller than the 239. 


Schweik said:


> Well, it depends on the bomber. If it's a TBD devastator or a TBF Avenger, an Albacore or Swordfish, or say, a Bristol Blenheim, then maybe a Nate is good enough. If they are sending something a bit more rugged or capable like fighter bombers, SBDs, A-20s, or B-25s then maybe if you have a bunch of 'Nates' defending your airfield then you can save your more modern fighters (Ki-43s or A6Ms) to go after the other bombers. In fact I think that is what they did sometimes.



The Avenger is in a class by itself. Larger heavier airframe, more armor and equipped with self sealing fuel tanks which the other three planes you mention did not (or were often not equipped with such). The Blenheims were rather variable. Most of the ones in the Far East may have been MK Is? which were not built with self sealing tanks. They may have been refitted? In any case the early MK IVs may not have had self sealing tanks either but may have been refitted? The British tended to push the older planes to the far east before the shooting started. 
I don't know about 1941 but in Jan 1940 the 6 Blenheim squadrons in the mid east all had MK Is and the 5 Blenheim squadrons in the far east were all MK Is. Defensive guns were either a single Lewis or K gun in the Turret? 

I would be very, very leery of using jets as examples of light fighters as the technology changed so much from generation to generation. 

for example the 5200lb thrust J-47 engine used in the early Sabre jets went about 2500-2550lbs.
the Bristol Orpheus engine used in the Gnat and G 91 gave around 4700-4850lbs of thrust for around 800lbs of engine weight, a lot easier to build a decent light fighter.

The J-79-GE-17 use in some F4 Phantoms went 3,850 lb for 11,905 lbf (52.96 kN) dry; 17,835 lbf (79.33 kN) with afterburner 
The F100-PW-220 used in the middle F-16s went 3,234 pounds for 14,590 pounds-force (64.9 kN) military thrust, (dry) and 23,770 pounds-force (105.7 kN) with afterburner 

power to weight ratios of the engines allow for more options for the aircraft designer. 

1930s and WW II aircraft engines didn't show quite the same jumps in in power to weight, Merlin being somewhat of an exception but that was also due to the changes in fuel. 
At any give point in time the power to weight ratios of a large aircraft engine were not that far off the power to weight ratios of medium sized engines (supercharged).
Unsupercharged light aircraft engines are a different story.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 17, 2020)

ssnider said:


> The F2A1's as received by the Finish had the R-1820-G5 export version engine, hydraulic prop., 3 50 cal. MG and one 38 cal. MG. The 30 cal, was replaced by a 50 cal.MD in Finland. The tail hook, life raft etc, was removed and the tail wheel replaced with a larger (and higher drag) grass field friendly one. The Finnish also added piolet armor (do not know weight) and a German made reflector gun sight. In another thread on this forum is a detailed weight break down of weights for for almost all the Brewster's except for the 239. A significant part of the weight increase for the British planes was increased ammo capacity.



The British (and other export) planes got R-1820-G105A engines (most used/rebuilt) that were good for 1100hp at 2350rpm in low gear. The US planes got R-1820-205A engines or the military equivalent. 
the 100 series engines switched from an aluminium crankcase to a steel crankcase, the 200 series engines switched to a different lighter and stronger steel crankcase, there quite a few other differences. There were basically 3 different propellers used on the Buffalo, a 9ft 0 in Hamilton Standard on the F2A-1 and 239s, a 10ft 3in Curtiss electric using hollow steel blades on the later american aircraft, a 10ft 1in Hamilton Standard used on the 339E. The 339B and 339D got 10ft 3in Curtiss Electrics with aluminum blades.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 18, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Part of the difference was the later plane got a much different engine. Not all R-1820s were created equal, The 239 got a direct drive engine that gave 950-1000hp at sea level at 2200rpm and 800hp at 16,000ft. The American F2A-2 & 3s got an R-1820 that was two generations newer, had a reduction gear, and ran at 2500rpm. 1200hp at sea level, I don't have the military power at altitude but max continuous was 900hp at 14,000ft. at 2300rpm. The new engine was about 180lbs heavier. The larger propeller was 77lbs heavier. the wing and landing gear both gained weight, in part to deal with the higher gross weights.
> The Foreign aircraft (French, Belgian, British, Dutch) got an the in between engine but it had a reduction gear and a larger propeller than the 239.



The bottom line though is that the extra weight accumulated overloaded the airframe and pushed the fat little Buffalo, which certainly wasn't a bad design by early war standards, past the tipping point.



> The Avenger is in a class by itself. Larger heavier airframe, more armor and equipped with self sealing fuel tanks which the other three planes you mention did not (or were often not equipped with such).



Great ASW aircraft. Somewhat questionable as a torpedo bomber IMO but adequate for the job in terms of outcomes (by the time the torpedoes were working they were able to sink a lot of Japanese ships with TBF / TBMs, albeit with heavy fighter escorts) but it was a very big and not very agile aircraft, a big target and not that well defended. I don't necessarily think it was a piece of cake for a Nate to take out but I daresay not impossible. Certainly lightly armed Ki-43s shot some down.



> The Blenheims were rather variable. Most of the ones in the Far East may have been MK Is? which were not built with self sealing tanks. They may have been refitted? In any case the early MK IVs may not have had self sealing tanks either but may have been refitted? The British tended to push the older planes to the far east before the shooting started.
> I don't know about 1941 but in Jan 1940 the 6 Blenheim squadrons in the mid east all had MK Is and the 5 Blenheim squadrons in the far east were all MK Is. Defensive guns were either a single Lewis or K gun in the Turret?



All of the Blenheims proved to be tragically vulnerable in operations in Burma and the MTO. Though it was not risk-free I think Ki-27s could and in fact probably did shoot them down and they similarly could cope with most Allied recon aircraft, and the other bombers I mentioned like the Devastator, Swordfish etc. I also think a Ki-27 could give a Fulmar a hard time.



> I would be very, very leery of using jets as examples of light fighters as the technology changed so much from generation to generation.
> 
> for example the 5200lb thrust J-47 engine used in the early Sabre jets went about 2500-2550lbs.
> the Bristol Orpheus engine used in the Gnat and G 91 gave around 4700-4850lbs of thrust for around 800lbs of engine weight, a lot easier to build a decent light fighter.
> ...



It's certainly a different kind of balance. The big tradeoff with the early jets was endurance. Some of those planes I mentioned like Mirage III and MiG-21 had flight times of considerably less than an hour in their early incarnations. But I agree with you there is a lot to consider - subsonic / transonic jets, supersonic, mach II jets, Mach II all-weather, the various fighter generations all have a different balance.



> 1930s and WW II aircraft engines didn't show quite the same jumps in in power to weight, Merlin being somewhat of an exception but that was also due to the changes in fuel.
> At any give point in time the power to weight ratios of a large aircraft engine were not that far off the power to weight ratios of medium sized engines (supercharged).
> Unsupercharged light aircraft engines are a different story.



The V-1710 went from around 1,000 hp to about 1,500 hp, 1,600 if you count the turbocharged -111 / -113 on the P-38. The DB 600 series also went through quite an evolution without adding too much weight. But you are certainly right this isn't comparable to jet engines.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 18, 2020)

In reverse, 
The engines in the P-38 gained about 300lbs in turbos and intercoolers and ducting over the early Allison's. They also required 100/130 fuel which the early Allison's didn't have. The first does affect the power to weight ratio while the 2nd affects timing. If you are designing a light fighter in 1939 for instance what possible engines are available/promised at what power to weight ratios? The most powerful engines will tend to have the best power to weight ratios. Leaving the light fighter with it's 2nd rate engine already behind the curve.

With jets staying in in service much longer it is quite possible to have planes of several generations in service at the same time. A light fighter several generations newer than old heavy fighter can be a viable option.


The Blenheim evolved, somewhat, Nates against MK Is with single K gun in the turret and no self sealing tanks or armor may very well be very successful. Against Blenheims with protected tanks and dual guns in turret the Nates kill rate may go down. Armor for pilot and gunner and twin Brownings in the turret make things even more difficult. The turret gunner has 50% more firepower than the Nate. Granted the Nate is a smaller target. Same against Hudsons, the Nate may be able to shoot them down but the success rate is not going to be as good as a fighter with more speed and heavier armament. 
Does a Ki 43 cost twice as much as a Ki 27? Does it use twice as much fuel? Does it require twice the ground crew?

In the BoB the British fighters often had 8 times the firepower of the defending bombers, the bombers often having only a single gun pointing in a given direction. it didn't guarantee success every intercept but in a long campaign the law of averages was on the fighters side.

In war you often have to use what you have, not what you wish you had, but deliberately picking inferior equipment because it is cheap is a very risky gamble and first cost is not a very good indicator of actual cost effectiveness over a period of time.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 18, 2020)

One of the factors is that fighters which started out expensive got a lot cheaper to make over time, so that planners were faced with the dilemma of keeping the older aircraft in production or investing more in the new one in the hopes that it pans out. Sometimes that gamble doesn't deliver like with the Typhoon, - which is why they kept making Hurricanes, basically (and after around 1942, those didn't work out so great either).

The Ki-27 wasn't good enough to keep making them in say 1942, but at that point, the Ki-43 was more expensive, so they kept some Ki-27s around. When the Ki-43 first came out it was a pretty advanced and sophisticated design, in some ways a better design than the Zero, though it had a few significant kinks to work out. By say, 1943 the Ki-43 is fading fast in terms of front line utility, but it can still be effective in the hands of a good pilot - it's certainly deadly against lighter bombers including SBDs and their Army equivalent, and basically any Carrier bomber, certainly Blenheims, and they could dominate Hurricanes, and pose a serious threat to Wildcats and P-40s. In contrast, newer fighters like the Ki-44 and especially the Ki-61 while more promising, were a nightmare to maintain in the field and couldn't live up to their promise. So that's why they kept making Ki-43s.

So I would say that dilemma does make it easier to use an existing fighter in this niche. The amount of time it takes from design to deployment makes timing a slightly sub-par fighter very tricky. But I do think it was possible to make a fighter with two heavy nose guns and say an R-1830 or even a Hispano 12-Y variant that could be useful as a point defense interceptor.

Hudson's were another of those planes, not a fighter but as a sort of general utility / patrol / navigation aircraft, that seemed to continue to have a lot of value and do relatively well in combat long after you would expect it to be able to. It seems to be a combination of toughness, good handling, maneuverability and reasonably good armament (including some forward firing guns). That's why they were still making them in 1943, which is a good run for what amounted to a pre-war light civil transport aircraft hastily modified for war.

The continued manufacture and widespread deployment of the Spit V makes a lot more sense in this context (to me). As does the FM-2 though it's a bit too heavy to qualify in terms of weight, from a cost and 'utility on small aircraft carrier' perspective, it makes a lot of sense. A Spit V may not be state of the art in 1943 but it's a very nice point defense fighter (especially with the various incremental improvements they got).

I think it's interesting to consider the Bf 109 from this perspective as well. In the 1930s it was certainly state of the art as a fighter, perhaps the most advanced in the world. In the BoB the short range was revealed as a significant design limitaton - the Bf 109 looks more like a short range interceptor and 'frontal aviation' fighter, but it's not really working out in the escort role. The need for a heavier or longer ranged fighter was apparent, this became the Fw 190 arguably, but it too lacked long range capability. By the mid war, say 1942, the Bf 109 was still very good but it's small size and limited operational range were beginning to cause significant headaches for the Germans, notably in the MED. The British were able to protect their convoys with Sea Gladiators and Sea Hurricanes, but if the Germans had an effective fighter - as good as a Fw 190 or Bf 109 but with the range of a P-38 or P-51, they would not have been able to. If they had something like that in 1942 they would have probably kept control of North Africa and taken Malta.

The Soviets saw a similar limitation with their fighters and managed to eventually produce the long range version of the Yak-9, albeit at some difficulty.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 21, 2020)

A good part of the reason the fighters grew in weight was that the larger, more expensive fighters were more often not, more capable.

Compare the Ki 43 to the P-40E. With a good pilot in the Ki 43 and a not so good (or experienced) pilot in the P-40E the Ki 43 can give a good account oF itself. 

However if we consider the Ki 43 to carry a pair of 12.7mm guns with 250rpg (500 rounds total) and the P-40E to carry six .50 cal guns with 235rpg (1410 rounds total) or 312 rounds for the No 1 gun, 290 rounds for the No 2 gun and 240 rounds for the No 3 gun in each wing (1686 rounds total) we can see that the P-40E has 3 times the _potential _to do damage. 
Yes you do have to get into firing position in order to use the armament but targets aside from fighters include bombers. transports, recon aircraft and flying boats/seaplanes. Not to mention strafing ground targets or small boats/not so small boats. 
If you are operating thousands of miles from home having a more expensive fighter that is more effective may be a huge advantage because you don't need as many to have the same target effect, you don't need as many pilots and you don't need anywhere near the same number of ground crew. 

However you still need competitive performance or at least one or two tricks the enemy cannot match. 
A heavy fighter that doesn't have high speed, *or* the ability to turn *or* the ability to climb *or* to dive* or* turn is in trouble.
But it doesn't need to be better in all categories, just a few even it it it just to break off combat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Akuma (Jun 2, 2021)

NevadaK said:


> I've come across a couple references to Eric Brown flying the Me 163. Here is the wikipedia text:
> 
> _Captain Eric Brown RN, Chief Naval Test Pilot and commanding officer of the Captured Enemy Aircraft Flight, who tested the Me 163 at the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) at Farnborough, said, "The Me 163 was an aeroplane that you could not afford to just step into the aircraft and say 'You know, I'm going to fly it to the limit.' You had very much to familiarise yourself with it because it was state-of-the-art and the technology used."[56] Acting unofficially, after a spate of accidents involving Allied personnel flying captured German aircraft resulted in official disapproval of such flights, Brown was determined to fly a powered Komet. On around 17 May 1945, he flew an Me 163B at Husum with the help of a cooperative German ground crew, after initial towed flights in an Me 163A to familiarise himself with the handling.[citation needed]
> The day before the flight, Brown and his ground crew had performed an engine run on the chosen Me 163B to ensure that everything was running correctly, the German crew being apprehensive should an accident befall Brown, until being given a disclaimer signed by him to the effect that they were acting under his orders. On the rocket-powered "scharfer-start" takeoff the next day, after dropping the takeoff dolly and retracting the skid, Brown later described the resultant climb as "like being in charge of a runaway train", the aircraft reaching 32,000 ft (9.76 km) altitude in 2 minutes, 45 seconds. During the flight, while practicing attacking passes at an imaginary bomber, he was surprised at how well the Komet accelerated in the dive with the engine shut down. When the flight was over Brown had no problems on the approach to the airfield, apart from the rather restricted view from the cockpit due to the flat angle of glide, the aircraft touching down at 200 km/h (120 mph). Once down safely, Brown and his much-relieved ground crew celebrated with a drink.[57]
> ...



Rudolf Opitz agreed with Eric Browns assessment of other flying wing type aircraft in that they were "Killers". Mr. Opitz also flew a number of the Horten Wings, as well as the Lippisch and others, saying they tended to be touchy at the controls and were not really meant to be flown by low time pilots. They were very unforgiving in flight. While the 163 could not be flown towards the edges of it's envelope by inexperienced pilots, it was docile enough within it's low and mid end regime to be flown by pilots with low time. Mr. Opitz said that if a pilot tried to perform a stall with the 163, instead of needing to recover from the stall, the 163 would nose up and assume a "very high sink rate".

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (Jun 2, 2021)

glennasher said:


> The Finns liked the Brewster, and the Russians liked the P-39, both candidates that could be considered, but I'd guess that the French and Italians had something worse. This is a pretty tough topic to really quantify.


italians? no


----------



## pops-paolo (Jun 2, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> So were they bad because they had bad flying characteristics, poor maintenance characteristics or just had the unfortunate fate to be pushed into the wrong war? A lot more to consider.


i was about to say i-16 its a vintage from the Spanish civil war


----------



## pops-paolo (Jun 2, 2021)

Schweik said:


> There seems to be a sweet spot that nobody pulled off during wartime for purpose-built 'light interceptors', the Caudron and the CW 21 were both failed efforts basically. But there were several other examples that kind of fit into that niche and were quite successful. Lets not forget, the Mosquito was designed to be a 'lightweight' bomber made of wood to save on strategic materials like duralumin which worked out fantastically as both a bomber and a fighter (and a recon, maritime patrol, intruder, and in many other roles). Many of the Soviet fighters were basically made along these same lines (lightweight due to relatively weak engines, using wood to save on aluminum and other strategic materials) and while they really struggled on both the design and (particularly) manufacturing level in the early war, the Yak series certainly turned out to be quite successful by the end, in fact the lightest (I think ?) version, the Yak 3, was widely considered one of the best fighters of the war, though at roughly 5,000 lbs they are on the limit of what would be considered a lightweight fighter by early war standards, by the later war they certainly were (compare to a P-51).
> 
> But in terms of weight you can get a lot closer to those two famous designs and find some successful examples. I think you could make a case for some of the biplanes like the Gladiator, I-153 and CR 42 being held over for production, (as well as the monoplane I-16) as being at least somewhat effective 'light fighters' - the Gladiator in particular worked both for point defense (as in Malta) and as a carrier aircraft. In the Pacific you have the Ki-27 "Nate" and the A5M4 which are actually lighter weight than the aforementioned 'light fighters' and were really quite successful, and helpful to have in the inventory, at least for a while. The Ki-27 in particular proved quite deadly against Allied aircraft, it wasn't until P-40s showed up that they started taking unacceptably heavy losses, but they were still being used here and there into 1944. Same could be said for the CR 42 and even the CR 32 in the early days of the fighting in North Africa and elsewhere around the Med. They did some effective work with those fighters.
> 
> ...


bro the cr.32/42 didn't have retractable landing gear so doesn't count


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 2, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> italians? no



YES!!! The G.50, C.200 RE.2000 were not going to win any major air campaigns, especially the RE.2000. Please accept the fact that the Italians didn't always build great products or deploy their good ones effectively!!! I think you're letting ethnic pride along with a little lack of knowledge distort some of your comments, and BTW I'm part Italian! 



pops-paolo said:


> i was about to say i-16 its a vintage from the Spanish civil war



It also served in WW2 with many VVS squadrons.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (Jun 2, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> YES!!! The G.50, C.200 RE.2000 were not going to win any major air campaigns, especially the RE.2000. Please accept the fact that the Italians didn't always build great products or deploy their good ones effectively!!! I think you're letting ethnic pride along with a little lack of knowledge distort some of your comments, and BTW I'm part Italian!
> 
> 
> 
> It also served in WW2 with many VVS squadrons.


bro re 2000 was good for early radial engine fighters but too late and the c.200 was pretty good the g.50 was meh to maybe not that good


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 2, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> bro re 2000 was good for early radial engine fighters but too late and the c.200 was pretty good the g.50 was meh to maybe not that good


By the time they were in service and deployed they were already obsolete and better Italian aircraft like the 202, 205 and RE.2005 weren't available in numbers to make a difference.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Akuma (Jun 2, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> YES!!! The G.50, C.200 RE.2000 were not going to win any major air campaigns, especially the RE.2000. Please accept the fact that the Italians didn't always build great products or deploy their good ones effectively!!! I think you're letting ethnic pride along with a little lack of knowledge distort some of your comments, and BTW I'm part Italian!
> 
> 
> 
> It also served in WW2 with many VVS squadrons.



When evaluating the Italian Air service it might help to remember that while the their doctrine on Bombing and air delivered torpedo's was very good, Italy simply did not have the economic resources to develop first rate aircraft. Where the fighter arm is concerned, like the Japanese, they still believed in the concept of having and maintaining superior dogfighting characteristics which is why they were still using biplanes such as the CR-32 and CR-42. They were superb, agile and sturdy fighters that packed a serious punch for their era, but biplanes non the less and the era of dogfighting was pretty much passe by that time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 3, 2021)

It seemed like the only thing the Italians were missing was engines, and many countries (including the US, Japan, and the USSR) struggled with that to some extent or another. Very high performance engines were a real challenge in WW2 aviation. Only really the UK and Germany created truly great in-line engines on their own, with perhaps whoever you want to credit for the Hispano-Suiza 12Y (Switzerland, Spain, France?) maybe 2nd. The US made great radial engines, and several other nations made good ones, but those came comparatively late. The Allison was a _good_ in-line engine but I wouldn't call it great since they never really sorted out high altitude operations.

Once you put DB 600 series engines in the Italian fighters they seemed to be pretty good, especially when you consider that Italy more or less ended military aircraft development in 1943.

On another subject, assuming that it's true the Me 163 really flew / and handled well and even had benign stall characteristics, can someone explain to me how a tail-less aircraft could be stable? How do the elevators work? I find it confusing vis a vis my crude grasp of aerodynamics.


----------



## Akuma (Jun 3, 2021)

On another subject, assuming that it's true the Me 163 really flew / and handled well and even had benign stall characteristics, can someone explain to me how a tail-less aircraft could be stable? How do the elevators work? I find it confusing vis a vis my crude grasp of aerodynamics.[/QUOTE]

As Mssrs. Eric Brown and Rudolf Opitz said, with the exception of the 163 all other flying wing designs up to that time were "killers". Both pilots spoke of the high sink rate that occurred instead of a stall when the 163 wing exceeded critical angle of attack and it must be remembered that although not a true stall, the 'sink' could cause harm. Mr. Heini Dittmar, the first test pilot for the 163 program came in for a landing when the airplane lost flying speed while still about twelve feet above the ground. The machine pancaked and, as luck would have it, Mr. Dittmar was also testing out a new cockpit seat that had a modified shock absorption system. While the seat did absorb some of the shock, enough was left to be transmitted to Mr. Dittmar causing spinal damage to put him in hospital for two years. The 163 had permanent slots just aft of the outer wing leading edges that, while giving a 2.5% increase in overall drag, prevented the aircraft from spinning. When a pilot cross controlled to cause it to spin the 163 would merely side slip. The 163 used Elevons acting as combined aileron and elevators outboard with flaps inboard for controlling glide angle on landing. Dr. Lippisch through the combination of a carefully chosen and modified airfoil, wing washout and design that emphasized stability through careful design of the Center of Lift (CL) and Center of Gravity (CG) regimes was able to create a flying wing type aircraft that was safe and reliable as far as it's aerodynamic properties were concerned. "Top Secret Bird" is the title of a book printed by Pictorial Histories Publishing Co. and authored by Wolfgang Spate who was the commander of the test unit tasked with preparing the 163 for use by the Luftwaffe and gives an in depth history on it. Another book available is "Warplanes of the Third Reich" by William Green, printed by Doubleday Co. which has an excellent section on the 163.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha3 (Jun 3, 2021)

While Fiat G.50 was not a great fighter it was not a hopeless one either. It was strong and could be dived to very high speeds. One of my distant relatives achieved 5+ kills with it (and I mean kills verifiable from Soviet docus), he had more kill claims while flying in G.50s that were accepted by the Finnish AF. And he achieved kills in other fighters too.

Ps. Finnish fighter pilots universally liked its flight characteristic, controls were light and effective, ailerons remained light even at high speeds. But it suffered from its rather poor power/weight ratio.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 3, 2021)

With the Finns in particular, but also in many other Theaters as we know, an aircraft which seems to be a 'dog' in one place works out to be quite effective in another. I think the Finns rated the G.50 pretty well.

There seems to be a threshold above which, with the right adaptations and in the right Theater, many marginal aircraft could succeed. The Finns own VL Myrsky fighter did not seem to make the cut, though more to do with the materials they were forced to use ('ersatz glue') than design issues.


----------



## Juha3 (Jun 3, 2021)

IMHO Swedish succeeded better with their J.22 than Finns with their VL Myrsky, the engine was the same.


----------



## Akuma (Jun 8, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> Which is the worst mass produced (>500 units), monoplane, single-engine, single-seat, retractable undercarriage fighter of WW2? By "mass" produced I'm setting a limit of at least 500 units, so no Vultee Vanguards and its <150 units. The Buffalo stands out, but the Finns did very well with theirs.


Just a question; what do you mean by worst? Worst in terms of contemporary measured performance? Worst in terms of perception by the pilots that flew them? Worst in terms of historical reputation? Worst in terms of the manner in which they were used? Worst in economic terms? Worst to maintain? There is no one aircraft in the greater than 500 operational units category, at least in terms of usage in WWII, that could fulfill all of the above.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 8, 2021)

Akuma said:


> Just a question; what do you mean by worst? Worst in terms of contemporary measured performance? Worst in terms of perception by the pilots that flew them? Worst in terms of historical reputation? Worst in terms of the manner in which they were used? Worst in economic terms? Worst to maintain? There is no one aircraft in the greater than 500 operational units category, at least in terms of usage in WWII, that could fulfill all of the above.


I think worst by contemporary measured performance. With the right industrial might, logistical chain and expertise any challenges in production or maintenance can be overcome, but if you’ve made a lemon there‘s little hope without significant rethink and rework.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 8, 2021)

Without bothering to look it up, my beloved Buffalo would be a contender as they made 500 of 'em. By most assessments it stunk without my having to define stunktitude. Perhaps the same can be said of early MiGs and Laggs as well. I'm not familiar with VVS equipment. There was a Laag whose acronym was turned into "lacquered coffin". The FAA had a fighter and a dive bomber rolled into one. Again, contenders all. The F2A did, however, have its moments.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Akuma (Jun 8, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> I think worst by contemporary measured performance. With the right industrial might, logistical chain and expertise any challenges in production or maintenance can be overcome, but if you’ve made a lemon there‘s little hope without significant rethink and rework.


Well I guess you could call the P-40A and the Spitfire Mark I and the BF-109B and the early model P-47s and P-51s dogs. They all required at least some rethinking and rework to turn into what they became. Production usually has less to do with an aircraft being a dog. By the standard of complex design not designed for mass production; the Lockheed P-38 could fit that description. One of the things that surprised the USAAF people was the ease of maintenance on most German aircraft of that time. Some years back I read a report of an AAF General who was I think an attache in Berlin and who had been invited to a maintenance demonstration by Luftwaffe personnel on a BF-109. He reported back to General Hap Arnold that he had been told to time the maintenance crew as they swapped engines and the armorers crew as the reloaded the weapons. The engine swap took 15 minutes while the reloading needed 17 after which a pilot took off in the plane performed a number of manuvers and landed it. For the AAF such speed in maintenance was unheard of. Was the Brewster F2A a dog or did the nation that built it not have the industrial might, logistical chain and expertise to turn it into a fighter at least as good as other contemporary aircraft if not better? I think a dog is more a product of wishful thinking rather than bad design. The Bell YFM-1 Airacuda might fit that description.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 9, 2021)

Akuma said:


> Well I guess you could call the P-40A and the Spitfire Mark I and the BF-109B and the early model P-47s and P-51s dogs.


Was that where you were taking us with your initial question? If those are your dogs I'd say you're in the minority.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jun 9, 2021)

When I look at the early marks / versions of an aircraft, fighters in particular, and compare them to the later variants, I could see where one would call them a dog. However, compared to the majority of planes being produced at the same time, they each stood out. Then look at what they evolved into and I can’ help but think they had outstanding DNA to allow such maturation.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Akuma (Jun 9, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> Was that where you were taking us with your initial question? If those are your dogs I'd say you're in the minority.





BiffF15 said:


> When I look at the early marks / versions of an aircraft, fighters in particular, and compare them to the later variants, I could see where one would call them a dog. However, compared to the majority of planes being produced at the same time, they each stood out. Then look at what they evolved into and I can’ help but think they had outstanding DNA to allow such maturation.
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff


When looking at the history of aircraft design, especially fighters, it's clear that no aircraft manufacturer's design team set out to build a 'Dog'. What I'm saying is that simply because I have 20/20 hindsight doesn't put me in the position to judge the efforts of those aircraft engineers who tried to do their level best for their employers and ultimately their countries. Some companies went with the tried and true approach and came out with airplanes like the PZL or the Hawker Hurricane while others like Supermarine took the S.6B and the 224 to bring out the Spitfire. Willi Messerschmitt took a chance on designing the BF-108 Taifun (an excellent aircraft even by today's standards) which led to the 109. The Spit Mk.1 and the 109A both showed promise but were not in themselves what they would become. They both required improvement. The P-39 and F2A both stood out as showing promise in much the same way as the P-36 or the Seversky P-35. There are many that would label the P-35 a 'Dog" even though its lineage can be traced forward through the P-43 Lancer to the P-47. If the same level of effort had been put into improvements in aircraft like the P-39, the F2A and others as well, there would be a larger number of aircraft memorable as outstanding designs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 9, 2021)

Let's keep it simple. A single-seat, single-engine, monoplane, retractable undercarriage WW2-era fighter needs a competitive combination of speed, agility, firepower, protection, robustness and (determined by its intended role) endurance in order to match opposing fighters and bombers. Throw in tech like reliable engines, guns, gunsights and radios.

Some, like the Spitfire, Mustang, Fw 190, etc. do this well. Others, like the LaGG-1/3 and MS. 406 not so much. The A6M Zero neglected five of the above seven elements to focus on agility and endurance, resulting in an unbalanced design that was doomed once its one trick and the related compromises were exploited by the enemy, IMO. It would have been interesting to see what Jiro Horikoshi would have designed had Mitsubishi sourced a competitive engine in the late 1930s.


BiffF15 said:


> ...look at what they evolved into and I can’t help but think they had outstanding DNA to allow such maturation.


Good point. Look at the Arsenal VG-33... too few produced to be considered here, but IMO it had the DNA to become something superlative.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## glennasher (Jun 9, 2021)

IIRC, the earliest Buffaloes outclimbed the earliest Wildcats enough to get the contract before Grumman got theirs. Then, they added on armor, self-sealing fuel cells, etc. and that ended the excellent climbing of the early Buffs. I expect it was the same across the board, for all the pre-war purchases. 
When they decided they needed armor, more guns, etc., then the aircraft ceased it's earlier attributes and became "something else".

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 9, 2021)

I think the MS406 would be a contender. Slow, unreliable poor climb, poor range


----------



## pbehn (Jun 9, 2021)

The early Hurricane Mk 1 and early versions of the Bf109s may have been dogs in terms of later performance but their job was actually to get a modern airforce off the ground, to train pilots and ground crew. The deficiencies of the Hurricane could be overcome in an afternoon, change the wings, change the prop and put new fuel and armour in. To call an early P-51 a dog is terminological inexactitude, it served until the end of the war almost unchanged and the RAF would have taken more at any time. The Spitfire needed improvement and it was improved remaining a competitive prop fighter from 1938 until prop fighters themselves were obsolete. If it didnt need improvement you are in the fantasy situation of Spitfire MkXIVs ripping the LW out of the sky in the BoB.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 9, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> It would have been interesting to see what Jiro Horikoshi would have designed had Mitsubishi sourced a competitive engine in the late 1930s.



Unfortunately for the Japanese it wasn't Mitsubishi that sourced the engine. Once their Zuisei engine proved not powerful enough in the first prototype/s The Navy ordered Mitsubishi to use the Nakajima Sakae instead of Mitsubishi's proposed substitution of their own Kinsei engine. 
The Kinsei may not have given the desired range however. The Navy continued to deny Mitsubishi's proposals to use the Kinsei engine until the A6M8.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 9, 2021)

Glider said:


> I think the MS406 would be a contender. Slow, unreliable poor climb, poor range


Agreed. It’s amazing that someone thought well enough of the MS406 to save one.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Akuma (Jun 10, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> Agreed. It’s amazing that someone thought well enough of the MS406 to save one.



M.S. 406, yet another example of following the 'Tried and True' approach to fighter design rather than going out on a limb and trying for higher performance.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 10, 2021)

Akuma said:


> M.S. 406, yet another example of following the 'Tried and True' approach to fighter design rather than going out on a limb and trying for higher performance.


 Trouble is you sometimes need both. If you bet your country's future on going out on a limb you can wind up with an air force with stuff like this. 







or 






Or see, Dewoitine D551

Looks cool but it had a much smaller wing than the D 520 (higher wing loading and landing speed) and used a tail skid. How practical that was service use I have no idea.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 10, 2021)

I guess this is where industrial advantage comes into play. With a big enough industrial base, a nation could go with both "tried and true" and go out on limb as well.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 10, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I guess this is where industrial advantage comes into play. With a big enough industrial base, a nation could go with both "tried and true" and go out on limb as well.


Indeed. Having six distinct fighter programs was not a smart move for a smaller industrial power like France.

Could France make due with just two fighters?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 10, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I guess this is where industrial advantage comes into play. With a big enough industrial base, a nation could go with both "tried and true" and go out on limb as well.


If there's one nation that could have benefited from a universal fighter it's Japan. Use the Ki-44 for both navy and army, like how the F-4 Phantom II was used universally across all three US air services. Yes, I know that the army and navy couldn't cooperate so it's a dead horse, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't have benefited. Same goes for twin engined bombers, make one for each size to serve both IJN and IJAF.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jun 10, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> If there's one nation that could have benefited from a universal fighter it's Japan. Use the Ki-44 for both navy and army, like how the F-4 Phantom II was used universally across all three US air services. Yes, I know that the army and navy couldn't cooperate so it's a dead horse, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't have benefited. Same goes for twin engined bombers, make one for each size to serve both IJN and IJAF.



Do you think the Ki-44 could have been adapted for carrier use?


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 10, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Do you think the Ki-44 could have been adapted for carrier use?


As the British demonstrated, pretty much everything from a Spitfire to a Mosquito can be adapted for carrier use. 

The Ki-44 was the semi-successor to the Ki-43 whilst the A6M didn't have one. The Ki-44 had a more balanced design, with better armament, protection for the pilot, etc. Start with that and modify it. Or scrap it and make something that can suit both air arms.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 10, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I guess this is where industrial advantage comes into play. With a big enough industrial base, a nation could go with both "tried and true" and go out on limb as well.


The British had the Hurricane, Spitfire, Defiant, Typhoon, Tornado and Whirlwind under development or in service when war started. Two abandoned because of engines (Vulture and Peregrine) Defiant because it didnt work. The three that were left complimented each other, Hurricane could be made quickly, Spitfire became a great aircraft, Typhoon/Tempest/Sea Fury also became good aircraft, if not exactly as planned. However as soon as war started the UK immediately realised it didnt have anything to do photo recon over enemy territory or any long range "heavy fighter" worthy of the name.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 10, 2021)

I was just thinking about British aviation. You brought up several examples. I was also thinking of the Meteor, Spitfire, Whirlwind, Tempest and Typhoon. A little of both depending on the timeframe (and whichever engine worked.).


----------



## pbehn (Jun 10, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I was just thinking about British aviation. You brought up several examples. I was also thinking of the Meteor, Spitfire, Whirlwind, Tempest and Typhoon. A little of both depending on the timeframe (and whichever engine worked.).


The Meteor was a gift to Gloster who in my opinion were pretty useless but part of a big group, A better company would have produced a better plane, and that wouldnt have been hard to do.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 10, 2021)

The turbo prop Meteor actually looks a better plane, a complete lack of imagination in the design, it hardly looks more advanced than a Mosquito and certainly nowhere near a Hornet. It is basically a twin piston engined fighter fitted with jets. 1:72 MPM Gloster Meteor Trent 'First Turboprop Fighter' - MP72574 | Aircraft art, Wwii plane art, Gloster meteor


----------



## Milosh (Jun 10, 2021)

The Meteor was retired in the '80s. Not bad for a useless a/c.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 10, 2021)

Milosh said:


> The Meteor was retired in the '80s. Not bad for a useless a/c.


For the want of anything else post war. 450 pilots were killed in 890 accidents out of circa 4,000 built.


----------



## Juha3 (Jun 10, 2021)

pbehn said:


> For the want of anything else post war. 450 pilots were killed in 890 accidents out of circa 4,000 built.



That was not so bad, 50s and 60s were rather awful times for military flying safety records. "_The German Air Force acquired 558 F-84s of different types, of which 202 were lost (Reis, 2012). This constitutes an attrition rate of 36.2% for the F-84, in contrast to 31.88% for the F-104 (i.e., 916 acquired and 292 lost). Moreover, Reis (2012) and Siano (2016) have pointed out that the Starfighter’s annual accident rate was also slightly lower than the F-84’s rate._" See An HFACS Analysis of German F-104 Starfighter Accidents (purdue.edu)
Of course for reasonable analyze one should know accidents per xxxxx flying hours (usually per 100,000 flying hours).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 10, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Do you think the Ki-44 could have been adapted for carrier use?


Only with a new wing. 

Ki-44 had a wing loading of about 38lbs per sq ft. 
A F8F-2 had a wing loading of 42lbs per sq ft. 

F4U-1 corsair ranged from about 35lbs per sq to to 40 lbs per sq ft clean depending on fuel load and ammo. 

It was possible but it would have been a very hard sell.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 10, 2021)

Juha3 said:


> _The German Air Force acquired 558 F-84s of different types, of which 202 were lost...36.2% for the F-84, in contrast to 31.88% for the F-104 (i.e., 916 acquired and 292 lost). _


In the F-104’s case weren’t most of those CFIT? Hardly the crate‘s fault if the driver steers for the ground. The Canadians did fine with their CF-104s, assigned a NATO tactical nuke strike mission.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jun 10, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Only with a new wing.
> 
> Ki-44 had a wing loading of about 38lbs per sq ft.
> A F8F-2 had a wing loading of 42lbs per sq ft.
> ...



I would expect the view over the nose might be a hard sell for carrier use as well. And the comically small vertical stab and rudder might need "tweaking" before it would offer an acceptable degree of stability or yaw control on approach


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 10, 2021)

Early jets have high loss rates, film at eleven. 'Tisn't news, is it?

Meanwhile, we've got the Buffalo and the MS.406 fighting for the cellar in the on-topic thang.

The Boomerang might be in there, too.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## glennasher (Jun 10, 2021)

They only built 250 of the Boomerangs, so it wouldn't have been in the running. Sorry.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 10, 2021)

If only someone had thought enough of the Buffalo to save one...and a TBD or two.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 10, 2021)

glennasher said:


> They only built 250 of the Boomerangs, so it wouldn't have been in the running. Sorry.



Ouch and sorry, So Buffalo and 406 it is.

I'm torn. Torn, I tell ya.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 10, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> If only someone had thought enough of the Buffalo to save one...and a TBD or two.



More than half of all the remaining TBDs got shot down or otherwise lost on 4 Jun 42. Production had ceased I think two years before the battle, and the USN had about 80 on stock when the Battle of Midway opened.

After that battle, the Stateside remainders were shuttled into training or hack duties, and the remaining 30-something airframes were worn down and discarded.

It'd be nice to see at least a static example of each.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 10, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Meanwhile, we've got the Buffalo and the MS.406 fighting for the cellar in the on-topic thang.


Agreed. It’s time to compare these two, via Wikipedia. Why can’t Wikipedia have consistent UOMs?

Brewster F2A Buffalo - Wikipedia

*Maximum speed:* 321 mph (517 km/h, 279 kn)
*Service ceiling:* 33,200 ft (10,100 m)
*Rate of climb:* 2,440 ft/min (12.4 m/s)
*Guns:* 4 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) nose-mounted M2 Browning machine guns
Morane-Saulnier M.S.406 - Wikipedia

*Maximum speed:* 452 km/h (281 mph, 244 kn) at 2,000 m (6,600 ft)
*Service ceiling:* 9,400 m (30,800 ft)
*Rate of climb:* 13 m/s
*Guns:* 1× 20 mm (0.787 in) Hispano-Suiza HS.404 cannon, 2× 7.5 mm (0.295 in) MAC 1934 machine guns


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 10, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> Agreed. It’s time to compare these two, via Wikipedia. Why can’t Wikipedia have consistent UOMs?
> 
> Brewster F2A Buffalo - Wikipedia
> 
> ...



Definitely agreed about the UOMs being all to shit and gone. I also think some qualities of a plane really don't translate to spec sheets very well.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 10, 2021)

Comparing the rate of climb specs posted, the Buffalo is cuter.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 10, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> More than half of all the remaining TBDs got shot down or otherwise lost on 4 Jun 42. Production had ceased I think two years before the battle, and the USN had about 80 on stock when the Battle of Midway opened.
> 
> After that battle, the Stateside remainders were shuttled into training or hack duties, and the remaining 30-something airframes were worn down and discarded.
> 
> It'd be nice to see at least a static example of each.


That's all I ask.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 10, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Comparing the rate of climb specs posted, the Buffalo is cuter.



The 406 seems to lose in RoC, top speed, and service ceiling. Armament might be a wash, but I don't know my ass from third base about French weapons.

Reliability and pilot comfort are other specs that aren't measured in the sheets, but matter in the field.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 10, 2021)

The heck with the specs. I don't even read 'em. The Buffalo is prettier.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 10, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> The heck with the specs. I don't even read 'em. The Buffalo is prettier.


The Finns did well with both.

Morane-Saulnier M.S.406 - Wikipedia
Brewster F2A Buffalo - Wikipedia

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Jun 10, 2021)

I think Kermit weeks found a Buffalo but until it's restored you will have to go to Finland to see one.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jun 10, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Armament might be a wash, but I don't know my ass from third base about French weapons.


Id give the armament to the 406, that central Hispano cannon was a formidable weapon, albeit with only 60 rounds in the drum. The synchronized Browning's in the F2A would have only been firing about 400-450 rpm.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 10, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> The Finns did well with both.
> 
> Morane-Saulnier M.S.406 - Wikipedia
> Brewster F2A Buffalo - Wikipedia


Of course they would. Those guys would have had success with the Wright Flyer.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 10, 2021)

special ed said:


> I think Kermit weeks found a Buffalo but until it's restored you will have to go to Finland to see one.


Was that the wreck found off Midway Atoll?


----------



## msxyz (Jun 11, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> The A6M Zero neglected five of the above seven elements to focus on agility and endurance, resulting in an unbalanced design that was doomed once its one trick and the related compromises were exploited by the enemy, IMO. It would have been interesting to see what Jiro Horikoshi would have designed had Mitsubishi sourced a competitive engine in the late 1930s.


It's not only a matter of engine (he designed also the J2M which used an engine that was available when he designed the Zero, and that was universally praised by US/British pilots who flew it after the war). I think it's more a matter of what he was asked to create. Factor into that also the much better political connections of Nakajima that prevented Mitsubishi and others to use a number of alternate engines. We all knew how it played out with the Homare.

I see some people mentioning the G.50 as a possible candidate for worst fighter. There's nothing wrong with it, except that it was already outdated at the beginning of war. Italy weakness was the engines, or rather both the lack of strategic materials and the quality of the fuel available (ironic, since high octane gasoline was available to the public in '30s for sport cars even!) and this doomed and entire generation of projects till the Germans came to the rescue with their DB601-605.

Engines available in quantity to an Italian designer in the second half of the '30s:

Alfa Romeo: license built versions of the Pegasus, albeit much improved (Alfa Romeo had cross license agreements with Bristol, so that all the improvements were relayed back to Bristol) : 700-900 HP: very large diameter but at least it was reliable.
Fiat A.74: loosely based on Pratt & Whitney designs (for which FIAT had acquired the right to use their patents): 840HP, very reliable
Fiat A.80: 18 cylinder large and heavy engine derived from the A.74: reliable and cheap but offered only 1000HP
Piaggio P.IX and P.XI: licensed versions of the Gnome 14K: 700-900HP; Piaggio engines were always more 'delicate' that their contemporaries and, as such, not very popular.
Piaggio P.XII: starting from the P.XI, Piaggio engineers created an improved, enlarged version; it took a long time to mature: lightweight but very large, at least it could deliver 1500HP.
Isotta Fraschini Asso: bulky W engine with 750-1000Hp. Not very suited for a fighter plane
Isotta Fraschini Delta: lightweight V12 aircooled engine. An engineering marvel but with only 750HP it was no better than the radials of the time.

All these engines were evolutionary dead ends. The Piaggio P.XI evolved into the P.XIX using higher compression ratio and german fuel to achieve 1150HP, but that's all.
Italy was never able to mass produce an engine in the 1500-2000HP class in quantity both due to the deterioration of the situation and because all the designs available were plagued by problems that were never adequately solved.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 11, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Of course they would. Those guys would have had success with the Wright Flyer.



Agreed, but it's interesting to compare the performance of the different types used by the Finns. Since all types were operating under broadly similar circumstances, the Continuation War offers some useful insights into some of the "second rate" fighters of the early 1940s. For example, despite having similar numbers of Brewsters and P-36s, the former delivered a significantly better combat performance than the latter. It's been a while since I looked at the numbers but, IIRC, the Brewster and the P-36 significantly put-performed other Finnish fighters until they started getting Me109Gs later in the war.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 11, 2021)

I'm surprised that the Buffalo outperformed the Hawk. The B-239 must have been significantly better than the B-339.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 11, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I'm surprised that the Buffalo outperformed the Hawk. The B-239 must have been significantly better than the B-339.



The B339 was the peak of the Brewster design. It had more power and better armament than the B239 and yet didn't have all the extra fuel/oil tankage of the F2A-3.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 11, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> The B339 was the peak of the Brewster design. It had more power and better armament than the B239 and yet didn't have all the extra fuel/oil tankage of the F2A-3.


I wonder what the Japanese thought of it?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 11, 2021)

I have seen them used as “targets” in a Japanese propaganda film where IJN fighters strafed an “enemy airfield“. It’s in the movie about Hayabusa pilots that someone graciously posted.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 11, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> I wonder what the Japanese thought of it?
> 
> View attachment 627016



There's no comment on Japanese opinions of the Buff, but this article has some more interesting pics.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha3 (Jun 11, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> If only someone had thought enough of the Buffalo to save one...and a TBD or two.



Some comfort to you

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha3 (Jun 11, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> In the F-104’s case weren’t most of those CFIT? Hardly the crate‘s fault if the driver steers for the ground. The Canadians did fine with their CF-104s, assigned a NATO tactical nuke strike mission.



I don't know, the article I linked probably has the answer, I looked for info on F-84 safety records, and that was the best I came across during a quick search. Not optimal, because in fact I was looking for info on the early F-84s and the Germans used F- and RF-84Fs, a bit different aircraft. IIRC the safety record of early F-84s (B and C) was appalling.
But the story of 104 with the Luftwaffe was complicated, there were training, logistic and organizational problems. It was too complicated and demanding for the new airforce, to both pilots and ground crews. But IIRC there were a few AFs which had even higher accident rate with 104 that the German LW.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 11, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I'm surprised that the Buffalo outperformed the Hawk. The B-239 must have been significantly better than the B-339.


I've always liked the Curtiss Hawk. Give it the F4F's more powerful P&W R-1830-76 Twin Wasp and the Hawk would do as well as the Wildcat.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 11, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Id give the armament to the 406, that central Hispano cannon was a formidable weapon, albeit with only 60 rounds in the drum. The synchronized Browning's in the F2A would have only been firing about 400-450 rpm.



Your right but I read a book on the Finnish use of the MS406. In it was mentioned the replacement of the 20mm with a Russian 12.7mm and the comment was that while the 12.7 wasn't as powerful at least there was confidence that it would fire.
Spare parts for the 20mm must have been difficult to come by after a while.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 11, 2021)

Juha3 said:


> Some comfort to you



Yeah...I'm trying to work out a plan to visit that wee beastie. Alas, it's not exactly easy to reach, even from within Europe.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 11, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> The heck with the specs. I don't even read 'em. The Buffalo is prettier.


I've always believed that there was nothing wrong with the Buffalo in Malaya, they just needed was more of them. In Nov 1941 Malaya Command had five active squadrons of Buffaloes for a territory larger than the UK where RAF Fighter Command had over 80 fighter squadrons.

This photo below of a dozen RAF Buffaloes represents a full fifth of the entirety of Malaya Command’s fighter force.






Give Malaya Command twenty squadrons of Buffaloes along with well defended, properly placed bases and they'll give the IJAF's Oscars and Nates a good fight. The Buffalo is fine, but you can't hold back a Japanese onslaught with sixty active aircraft.

It's too bad the dozen or so MS.406 didn't escape and fly to Malaya to become a Free French unit.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 11, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> I've always believed that there was nothing wrong with the Buffalo in Malaya, they just needed was more of them. In Nov 1941 Malaya Command had five active squadrons of Buffaloes for a territory larger than the UK where RAF Fighter Command had over 80 fighter squadrons.
> 
> This photo below of a dozen RAF Buffaloes represents a full fifth of the entirety of Malaya Command’s fighter force.
> 
> ...



Re: the Buffalo, Eric Brown had this to say:



> Capt. Brown flew a Belgian-order Brewster 339 at Royal Naval Air Station, Yeovilton, early in 1941, along with a Grumman Martlet, as the British called the F4F Wildcat. "They were both tubby little single-seat fighters with a very purposeful air about them," he wrote. Brown noted that there were 40 of these planes, acquired when Belgium fell to the Germans, and shipped to Britain aboard HMS _Furious_. They were assembled at Burtonwood, later a huge American base--near Manchester, I think. He obviously had his notes in front of him as he wrote the Buffalo chapter:
> 
> "Once in the cockpit I found the view ahead rather poor because of the aft position of the pilot and the high position of the nose. In spite of this, the aircraft was very easy to taxi, as the brakes were smooth and very efficient.
> 
> ...



Brewster Buffalo / Eric Brown's opinion

I'm not sure if that's the entirety of his opinion, as that is clearly hearsay, but it doesn't seem he was carried away by the Buffalo's capabilities.

Of course more squadrons in Malaya would have been useful. I'm unsure how much so.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## eagledad (Jun 11, 2021)

Per the MS-406.

Gentlemen,

Let us not forget about the *Mörkö Morane* where the airframe had its original engine replaced with with captured Klimov M-105P engines of 1100HP. The engine change boosted the Morane's top speed, ceiling and rate of climb.

My understanding is that the Finns converted 50 +/- machines.

Data follows

*Mörkö Morane / Morane-Saulnier MS 406 C1 *
*Crew: 1 co- *
*Length: 8.17 m *
*Distance between 10.62 m *
*Wing area: 16.00 sq *
*Empty weight: 2 210 kg *
*Maximum Take-off Weight: 2 787 kg of *
*Engine: Klimov M 105P -rivimoottori, 12 cylinders, *
*power: 820 kW (100 hp 1) 2 000 meters, the propeller W-61P. *
*Highest speed around 440 km / h (at sea level) *
*Maximum Speed: about 510 km / h (000 meters 4) *
*rising speed of about 17 m / s (0-3 000 meters)*

*Armament: 2 x 7,5mm mg + 1 x 20 mm Mauser MG-151/20 150 -tykki which the projectile. *
*---------------------------- *
*Installation Planning began immediately. Engine was one 1, 820 kW Klimov M-105P and the main weapon 20mm cannon, in addition to which two blades was 7.5 mm machine guns. Changes had to be made to the exhaust system, turbocharger, coolant tank and oil cooler. The modification was made without drawings and the first modified machine (MS-631) trial was completed in January 1943 and the first flight took place in February 1943. *

FWIW

Eagledad


----------



## glennasher (Jun 11, 2021)

Wasn't the original Hawk noted for wrinkling it's wings when worked a little too hard? Adding a more powerful motor might not be the best thing to do, IIRC, it had to be stiffened up a couple of times before they even thought about putting the Allison in it.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 11, 2021)

(I actually do read the specs.. Shhhh, don't tell anyone.)


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 11, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Of course more squadrons in Malaya would have been useful. I'm unsure how much so.


IIRC from Bloody Shambles the Buffalo had a good kill ratio over Malaya.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 11, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> IIRC from Bloody Shambles the Buffalo had a good kill ratio over Malaya.



I'll look up the numbers in the next few days, if they're around. You've mentioned this before in other threads.


----------



## Juha3 (Jun 11, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Yeah...I'm trying to work out a plan to visit that wee beastie. Alas, it's not exactly easy to reach, even from within Europe.



I used to drive past the museum at least once a year so it was easy to pay a visit now and then, at least in theory but almost every time I was with my wife, on the way to my parents in-laws and she has zero interest in warplanes, so visits needed some prior consultations.

But the museum is next to Jyväskylä airport and flights from Helsinki to Jyväskylä and vice-versa began again about a month ago. I don't know how many times a week but probably at least a couple time a week.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 11, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I'll look up the numbers in the next few days, if they're around. You've mentioned this before in other threads.


At least nine Commonweath pilots either became aces in the Buffalo or increased their scores to achieve acedom, and a further fifteen aces flew the Buffalo in combat. 

https://www.amazon.com/Brewster-Buffalo-Aces-World-Aircraft/dp/1846034817/

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 11, 2021)

I guess that's the thing about these "also rans". They were, sometimes, just SO close. Believe it or not, I get P-39 Expert's frustration. IF the Buffalo was built to spec or IF the MS. 406 had a more powerful engine..... Maybe that's why some of us have a soft spot for them.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 11, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I guess that's the thing about these "also rans". They were, sometimes, just SO close. Believe it or not, I get P-39 Expert's frustration. IF the Buffalo was built to spec or IF the MS. 406 had a more powerful engine..... Maybe that's why some of us have a soft spot for them.


It’s interesting that the Swiss chose the MS.406 to license build.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 11, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I guess that's the thing about these "also rans". They were, sometimes, just SO close. Believe it or not, I get P-39 Expert's frustration. IF the Buffalo was built to spec or IF the MS. 406 had a more powerful engine..... Maybe that's why some of us have a soft spot for them.



The other thing is how much designers of subsequent aircraft learnt from these marginal or failed designs. That has value, too.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 11, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> The other thing is how much designers of subsequent aircraft learnt from these marginal or failed designs. That has value, too.


And that brings me back to pre-war France. With at least six separate fighter programs from six different designers there was little chance to learn from failures and continually innovate.

Could France make due with just two fighters?

How else can we explain France developing and flying the POS SNCAO 200?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 11, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> And that brings me back to pre-war France. With at least six separate fighter programs from six different designers there was little chance to learn from failures and contiously innovate.
> 
> Could France make due with just two fighters?



I'd read that post earlier and didn't reply at the time, but I do agree. Effective military procurements must take into account the strength of the national economy. Aside from those fighter programs, you have a lot of bombers to build, and you're trying to build Char B1s and finish the two battleships, too.

All that is a big ask for the French economy of the era.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 11, 2021)

The Buffalo was over taken by events.
It is also an example of "cutting" edge that backfired. 

Once piece wing, good idea for light weight, bad idea for ease of repair, especially if it goes through the middle of the fuselage. 
Mid-wing design, good idea for streamlining, doesn't need big wing root fairings. Bad idea, see above. 
Use the box spar as fuel tank, good idea for light weight, bad idea for ease of repair, really bad idea trying to fit self sealing tank liners and/or repair them. 

It used three engines.

F2A-1 and the Finns got a 950hp engine with no reduction gear that weighed 1114lbs and used a small propeller, 262lbs

All of the rest of the export planes got an 1100hp engine with a reduction gear and larger prop, engine weighed 1287lbs

The F2A-3 got a 1200hp engine that weighed 1315lbs. Prop weighed 339lbs. All engines had two speed superchargers. 
The F2A-3 engine had 150hp more at 14-15,000ft max continuous. 

Overtaken by events means, (according to me). the addition of armor and protected tanks and trying to fix the landing gear (all too prone to bending/breaking in carrier use) added weight. Poor specifications by the Navy did not help. "_standard_" fighter configuration seems to have been two .50 cal guns and 110 gallons of fuel. four guns and 180 gallons was overload. The Buffalo used the smallest wing of any American fighter, it had the worst drag coefficient. It's engine/s weren't enough to make up the difference.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 11, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> All that is a big ask for the French economy of the era.


It’s true, but if France was firmly led its government could have forced the hand of the aeroplane suppliers. Make just the MS.406, then just the D.520. They both use the Hispano-Suiza 12Y engine, giving time and scale to make improvements. Skip the MB.150, VG-33, C.714, etc.

As for bombers, make just the LeO 45 (308 mph, 3,457 lb bombs) and MB.170, again sharing the same engine (Gnome-Rhône 14N) allows for scale and improvements. Maybe the Bréguet 693 can find a niche in CAS. Everything else, like the Potez 630 was needless duplication of effort or just plain crap.

Look at postwar France for what’s possible. Under CDG, France focused all fighter and (less a few failed Sud Aviation types) bomber development onto Dassault (nee Bloch)‘s Mystere and Mirage series.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## ssnider (Jun 12, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> The Buffalo was over taken by events.
> It is also an example of "cutting" edge that backfired.
> 
> Once piece wing, good idea for light weight, bad idea for ease of repair, especially if it goes through the middle of the fuselage.
> ...



Do you have a source for early WWII aircraft drag coefficients?


----------



## Glider (Jun 12, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> (I actually do read the specs.. Shhhh, don't tell anyone.)



Don't worry, your secret is safe with us, you hide it well

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 12, 2021)

I know, right?


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 12, 2021)

SE SS RLG
timeline for time to delivery to unit
Polikarpov I-16 ?/35
Messerschmitt Bf 109 2/37
Curtiss Hawk 3/37
Seversky P-35 5/37
Hawker Hurricane 12/37
Heinkel He 112 12/37
Morane Saulnier M.S.405 5/38
Supermarine Spitfire 8/38
Fiat G.50 1/39
Marcel Bloch M.B. 150 3/39
Brewster Buffalo 7/39
Heinkel He 100 Summer/39
Macchi C.200 8/39
Dewoitine D.520 1/40
Grumman Wildcat 2/40
Rogozarski IK-3 3/40
Koolhoven FK.58 ?/40
Arsenal VG 30 5/40
Caudron C.714 5/40
Curtiss-Wright CW-21 5/40
Reggiane Re.2000 5/40
Curtiss Warhawk 6/40
Mitsubishi A6M 7/40
Republic Lancer 9/40
Bell Airacobra 9/40
Mikoyan i Gurevich MiG-1 12/40
Mikoyan i Gurevich MiG-3 1/41
Lavochkin-Gorbunov-Gudkov LaGG-3 1/41
IAR 80 2/41
Yakovlev Yak-1 Early/41
MacchiC.202 5/41
NakajimaKi-43 6/41
Focke Wulf Fw 190 8/41
Hawker Typhoon 9/41
Nakajima Ki-44 9/41
Reggiane Re.2001 9/41
North American Mustang 10/41
Yakovlev Yak-7 10/41
Caproni Vizzola F.5 Winter/42, they were built but not delivered in '40
Republic Thunderbolt 5/42
Vought Corsair 7/42
Lavochkin La-5 Summer/42
Vultee Vanguard 8/42
CAC Boomerang 10/42
Kawasaki Ki-61 11/42
Yakovlev Yak-9 12/42
Grumman Hellcat 1/43
AviaB-135 2/43
Macchi C.205 4/43
Reggiane Re.2005 4/43
Fiat G.55 6/43
Ambrosini SAI 207 7/43
Bell Kingcobra 10/43
FFVS J 22 10/43
Mitsubishi J2M 12/43
Hawker Tempest 1/44
Kawanishi N1K -J 1/44
Yakovlev Yak-3 4/44
Lavochkin La-7 Spring/44
VL Myrsky 8/44
Nakajima Ki-84 10/44
Focke Wulf Ta 152 12/44
Kawasaki Ki-100 3/45
Grumman Bearcat 5/45

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

