Advanced French Fighters vs 1942/1943 contemporaries (3 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.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

There are problems with big fighters too. It's clear that the best fighters of the war were about evenly split between the very large and very small, with each basic design approach having both advantages and disadvantages, but maybe it's time for another thread on that.

However with regard to the French fighters specifically, if your own argument against their being of any merit or potential merit is just that they are small, I think we can move past that particular stumbling block simply because Bf 109, Fw 190, MC 202 / 205, Yak 1/7/9, Yak 3, La 5 etc. etc.

 

[Shortround6]

However with regard to the French fighters specifically, if your own argument against their being of any merit or potential merit is just that they are small, I think we can move past that particular stumbling block simply because Bf 109, Fw 190, MC 202 / 205, Yak 1/7/9, Yak 3, La 5 etc. etc.

Some of them have several problems as result of being small.
While some of the world was building larger aircraft the French went both ways. Bloch 157 gained about 20sq ft of wing area and about 800lbs over the Bloch 155. You want big power you have to pay for it. But the Arsenal V-33/39 went the other way, losing about 20sq ft of wing compared to the D 520 while not being any lighter. Sticking a heavier engine in the plane is going to make somethings worse. Likewise, the D.551 lost wing area although they tried for lighter weight. How successful that was is unknown as there were no real production examples.
Having good air superiority fighters is important. But that is one mission. Not all large fighters are good a variety of missions but a large fighter has a better chance of being good at different missions. Sometimes this is helped by the opposition flying in a different way or using small aircraft of their own or building mostly crappy bombers. Germans reliance on the He 111 as the standard bomber made things easy for their opponents. On the slow side, crappy defensive armament kind of makes things easy for the interceptors. In 1939 and most of 1940 very few fighters carried a significant bombload, like more than a pair of 100lb/55kg bombs. This changed as the years went on but small fighters had trouble with that mission, they did do it or try to but a pair of 100kg bombs doesn't have the same impact as a pair of heavier bombs.
What works for fighter to fighter combat doesn't work as well if you are facing large bombers. It is possible to shoot down large airplanes with a light gun armament but the odds are against you.
Small fighters often have problems with range (fuel capacity).
Problem for the French in 1940-41 is they don't know how the war is going to develop.
Are they going to be able to go on the offensive and need longer range planes?
Are the Germans going to come out with faster or better bombers?
Do-217s in larger numbers? A 4 engine/prop He 177 in larger numbers? or a much better conversion of the Fw 200.
Are they going to have switch to fighter bombers for tactical support missions? Their small light bombers kind of suck but if the French can also build better light and medium bombers at the same time as the small fighters perhaps all will be well.

Bf 109 was used throughout the war, but it was getting a little (or a lot) past it's prime. But it was built in a lot of factories and/or subcontractors and the cost of changing over was high. it was not a good bomber buster (but the US bombers were very big) and it was not a good fighter bomber. Single 250kg bomb in 1944 was not really that great. Since in the west the Americans were kind enough to fly their bombers right past the German fighter bases, long range was not a problem
I have no idea of where the Fw 190 fits in the discussion. Yes, the wing is on small side but a lot of them grossed over 9000lbs clean. A-3 went about 8770lbs (?) and an A-8 was over 9600lbs clean. Are they small or large? They are getting into clean P-51D weights, is the P-51D a small or large fighter?

 

[tomo pauk]

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.

The 2-engined fighters - designed as such - were few and far between before 1941. Talking about in-service types.
There was the Bf 110, a handful of Whirlwinds and Beaufighters, and that's it.

I am agreeing that different countries had different requirements.

+1 on that.

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.

As before - Soviets have had no problem in putting the 'stuff' on their fighters, small as they were. Problem was the engine choice, and a lot of that problem was of their own making. The powerful Mikulin V12s were modified to suit the low-level attack aircraft, while they spent almost all of the 1942 to find the best home for the M/ASh-82 family. Even discounting the possible 'normal altitude' developments of the Mikulins, a long-range fighter powered by the ASh-82 would've been a far better asset than anything powered by anything of the the M/VK-105 engine family.
(all of this is if we discuss only the 1-engined fighters)

Again, Soviets not bothering with drop tanks was the self-inflicted wound once they were mooting about the longer-ranged fighters.

Having good air superiority fighters is important. But that is one mission. Not all large fighters are good a variety of missions but a large fighter has a better chance of being good at different missions.

Having good air superiority fighters was not just important, it was crucial. Lack of these - both in quality and quantity - was one of key reasons why the French and others lost in 1940 against Germany. Not having the edge in air superiority fighters (again, both in quality and quantity) meant the LW was stopped in the BoB.
Or, see the air war in 1944 in ETO - it didn't mattered a single iota that Fw 190 was a more versatile type than the P-51 of the day, what was important was that Fw 190 was worse as an air superiority fighter.

Problem for the French in 1940-41 is they don't know how the war is going to develop.
Are they going to be able to go on the offensive and need longer range planes?
Are the Germans going to come out with faster or better bombers?
Do-217s in larger numbers? A 4 engine/prop He 177 in larger numbers? or a much better conversion of the Fw 200.
Are they going to have switch to fighter bombers for tactical support missions? Their small light bombers kind of suck but if the French can also build better light and medium bombers at the same time as the small fighters perhaps all will be well.

French are not fighting the war alone. There also the British in the fray, and these are also the US-made aircraft in service. There will be a lot of so-so fighters for 1941-42 (Hurricanes, P-40s) to bomb them up. Fernch and Vritish are also buying the BD-7s and future A-20s.
You can bet the Germans are going to field the better gear - hence the drive to make both the more powerful engines and complete aircraft by everyone.
Every 4-engined bomber the Germans make = two 2-engined bombers less are made.

Having a better/best fighter is far more important than having a good mud mover.

I have no idea of where the Fw 190 fits in the discussion. Yes, the wing is on small side but a lot of them grossed over 9000lbs clean. A-3 went about 8770lbs (?) and an A-8 was over 9600lbs clean. Are they small or large? They are getting into clean P-51D weights, is the P-51D a small or large fighter?

P-51 is probably a medium-sized fighter, together with Spitfire and Zero.

 

[Frog]

The 2-engined fighters - designed as such - were few and far between before 1941. Talking about in-service types.
There was the Bf 110, a handful of Whirlwinds and Beaufighters, and that's it.

Add the Potez 631 (208 examples).

 

[tomo pauk]

Add the Potez 631 (208 examples).

Thank you, I stand corrected.

 

[Gilder]

Can I add the Fokker G1

 

[Frog]

And the Blenheim Mk II F.