Advanced French Fighters vs 1942/1943 contemporaries (8 Viewers)

[Shortround6]

I don't think these are race planes turned fighters, for that see the sad story of the Caudron 714

That one is true, mostly, but the D 551 was a development of the D 550 which was built to try to win the world speed record.
While the D 550 was based on the D 520 it was not a modified D 520 but a new plane that was smaller. Only one was built but while they were still sorting out the engine to be used and doing test flying with standard engines the Germans pushed the record beyond what the French thought they could manage. Same thing happened to the Speed Spitfire.
Unfortunately, many photos of the D.550 and D.551 are miss labeled as each other and since there was only one D 550 and one prototype D 551 and 12 (?) preproduction machines (2 complete and 10 fuselages?), I have no idea if either of the flyable planes in pictures were ever modified so identification is difficult. The French did try work on them after the Armistice but were refused permission to fly. Some of our members have better information than I but the record plane used a very small wing and the fighter version was larger but still smaller than the D.520 wing.

Both the French and British totally botched the tactical air war in France. Germans were flying 3-4 times the number of sortied per day than the British and French. British and French were not getting tactical bombers into the target areas until hours after the recon have been done. Germans were often somewhere else by that time. British and French were totally botching up the bomber escort missions. A fighter sweep a half hour before or after the bombing mission is not escorting the bombers. French may have done better but the British were often sending Battles and Blenheims 50-100 miles behind the lines to interdict supplies and not giving the bombers escorts. Then they (high command) would bitch about losses.
Better planes and better training would have given better results but the German planes did get better in the fall of 1940 and spring/summer of 1941.

 

[tomo pauk]

France had the Potez 630. They also adapted to several other rolls. Unfortunately, it was designed to a 1934 specification and in French fashion, it ran late, the initial engine selection was a failure and by the time it went into service in numbers it was horribly obsolete for some of it's intended roles. A pair of 700hp engines in 1934-37 might have been seen as quite up to date. In 1939-40 it was a death trap.
For the Italians the IMAM 57 comes to mind
Most of the 50-75(?) built (out of 200 ordered) were converted to fighter bombers. It might have been a good idea in 1939. By the end of 1940 it was not.

I'm aware of the Potez 63 series, as well as of the Ro.57. The former was designed as a multi-place recon, and the fighter version was indeed built. The later was not produced as a fighter. My point was that neither of the two countries was actually producing bespoke 2-engined fighters as fighters.

It is just pointing out that different fighters had to meet different requirements and that small does not always equal good. Criticizing the US for making big fighters is ignoring the actual needs of the US.

FWIW, just like I'm not criticizing the 'continentals' for their small-winged fighters, I also am not criticizing the Americans for their fighters being of the size they were. Especially the R-2800-powered types, and especially the naval fighters. Indeed, the different fighters were designed to the different requirements.

There was no need to fit drop tanks to the Yak-3s, they had the YAK-9Ds and the YAK-9DDs but the YAK 9DD does point out a problem with small fighters. Putting 185 gal of fuel inside a fighter designed for about 96 gal was possible but the weight increase called for sacrifices in other areas or a loss of performance.

The problem was not as much of putting a lot of fuel in the Yak fighters, but that the -9D and -9DD were powered by the engines no better than the Merlin III - in 1944 for crying out loud. They indeed had them, hopeless as they were.
For the Yak-3 to be of the longer range, the drop tanks' installation would've been the 1st step, just like it was in most of the ww2 fighters, from Zero and Bf 109E onwards.

In 1944 the Soviets could afford to build specialty fighters.

Agreed.
The Soviet long-range fighter in 1944 should not be powered by the engine of Klimov's design (not even in 1943), but by the ASh-82F/FN of the era, or better yet by an AM-39.

 

[Shortround6]

I'm aware of the Potez 63 series, as well as of the Ro.57. The former was designed as a multi-place recon, and the fighter version was indeed built. The later was not produced as a fighter. My point was that neither of the two countries was actually producing bespoke 2-engined fighters as fighters.

We may be getting a bit side-tracked.
If we are talking about single seat 2-engine fighters you are of course correct, only few countries even built prototypes let alone production aircraft.
But if we go to 2-seat 2 engine fighters they were a more common. Some countries liked the 2 seat fighter for long range in the late 30s because of the crappy radios needing a key (not voice) to get the needed range. Once radios got better the need for a 2nd crewman diminished.

FWIW, just like I'm not criticizing the 'continentals' for their small-winged fighters, I also am not criticizing the Americans for their fighters being of the size they were. Especially the R-2800-powered types, and especially the naval fighters. Indeed, the different fighters were designed to the different requirements.

we seem to be tangled up in a 3 way discussion (or more). I am not saying you criticized either camp. I am agreeing that different countries had different requirements.

The problem was not as much of putting a lot of fuel in the Yak fighters, but that the -9D and -9DD were powered by the engines no better than the Merlin III - in 1944 for crying out loud. They indeed had them, hopeless as they were.

And this is some of the problem with small fighters, there is only so much "stuff"/payload you can put in them. Payload being the difference between empty weight and normal gross weight. If you can meet your mission requirements with the payload you can put in the small fighter (armament, fuel, etc) and get the required performance then all is well and good.
But if the mission requirements change the smaller fighter has more trouble adapting.
Needing to change to a new fighter design instead of being able to adapt an existing one was easier for some countries than others.
Some designs were more adaptable than others. P-39 had a lot trouble adapting due to basic design choices.