Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The 150 was a one off, the 151 and 152 were the production versions and varied from the 150 considerably.With the MB.150 not providing much advantage over the MS 406
With both the Ms.406 and the D.520 (or VG.33) using the same engine there is the added economies of scale. Let Gnome-Rhône follow Bristol and focus on supplying radials for multi-engine types.The 150 was a one off, the 151 and 152 were the production versions and varied from the 150 considerably.
Main advantage over the Ms 406, especially in this scenario, is that is not competing for the HS 12Y engines.
The MS405 takes too long to go into production as the MS406. Its performance isn't exactly stellar so it makes sense to replace it. The D520 is the logical choice but is rushed into production and service. It has a list of faults and shortcomings. Building an alternative like the VG33 makes sense. If its meant to replace the C714 then it's a very sound move. The C714 is a disaster, the wrong path in development has been taken. The Bloch 150 series is plagued with problems, so buying Hawks is a sound move and procuring an alternative local design, the FK58, a sound move.France had six entirely distinct single-seat, single-engine, monoplane fighter programs in production between 1936 to 1940.
These came in three batches, Specifications of 1934, 1936 and 1937. Had France chosen the best of each Specification rather than producing so many types would they have been better off? Did the government have the ability to force aircraft manufacturers to cooperate? Would concentration on fewer types have led to more aircraft being available?
- Bloch MB.150. Specified 1934. First flight 1937. Introduced 1939.
- Morane-Saulnier M.S.406. Specified 1934. (same as the MB.150). First flight 1938. Introduced 1938.
- Arsenal VG-33. Specified 1936. First flight 1939. Introduced 1940.
- Dewoitine D.520. Specified 1936 (same as the VG-33). First flight 1938. Introduced 1940.
- Caudron C.714. Specified 1936 (same as VG-33). First flight 1936. Introduced 1940.
- Koolhoven F.K.58. Specified 1937. Ordered from Dutch firm. First flight 1938. Introduced 1940.
The 1937 Specification also led to the SNCAO 200 and Potez 230, but neither was produced. If these two firms in addition to producing their existing aircraft have capacity to make a new fighter, and given the circumstances wouldn't it have been more prudent to tell SNCAO and Potez to focus on making D.520s or VG-33s?
For example, in 1938 the superlative Dewoitine D.520 first flies. This is a year before the laggardly Bloch MB.150 enters service. Could some Grande Fromage have said, hey Marcel, I want you to switch your plant over to this Dewoitine when it's ready?
I like the D.520 naval variant. Of all the European in-line-powered single-engine fighters intended/modified for carriers (Seafire, Sea Hurricane, Fulmar, Firefly, Bf 109T, Reggiane Re.2001), I'd say the folding wing D.790 as it was continually developed would have been only second to the later folding wing Seafire or later Firefly.
View attachment 593024
View attachment 593025
Images courtesy of DEWOITINE D.790
Makes me wonder why the French Navy considered then. The Arsenal VG-33 seems the better choice.The view from the cockpit is not going to help. Other planes did have bad views over the nose but the D.520 sure looks like it would be in the top 3-4 for bad view.
Bad view and vicious stall and you have a plane in competition with the early F4U for worst carrier fighter to land on a carrier
Was the D.520 better than the VG.33?Interesting thread. The D.520 is by far and away the best of the French fighters available for improvement and production, so it warrants further exploration to fulfil greaer production and standardisation of the Armee de l'Air. We all
Was the D.520 better than the VG.33?
But yes, as there were about 900 D.520s and less than fifty VG.33s it would make sense to focus on the former. On the "if it looks right, it is right" approach, the VG.33 is the better looking of the two.
AND the A5M, to be followed by the A6M.Japan has one, the Ki-27 Nate, to be followed by the Ki-43 Oscar.
True, but I was referring to Air Force, not naval fighters.AND the A5M, to be followed by the A6M.
Which, in the case of the Pacific arena at least, is a largely artificial distinction. Both US and Japanese used naval aircraft land based for combat over land. And their army air forces fought largely against their opponent's naval aircraft. The coastlines didn't make a neat division between nautical and terrestrial as far as air combat was concerned.True, but I was referring to Air Force, not naval fighters.
Better looking yes, better operationally ?????Was the D.520 better than the VG.33?
But yes, as there were about 900 D.520s and less than fifty VG.33s it would make sense to focus on the former. On the "if it looks right, it is right" approach, the VG.33 is the better looking of the two.
Thanks for using dates. For ComparisonFrance had six entirely distinct single-seat, single-engine, monoplane fighter programs in production between 1936 to 1940.
These came in three batches, Specifications of 1934, 1936 and 1937. Had France chosen the best of each Specification rather than producing so many types would they have been better off? Did the government have the ability to force aircraft manufacturers to cooperate? Would concentration on fewer types have led to more aircraft being available?
- Bloch MB.150. Specified 1934. First flight 1937. Introduced 1939.
- Morane-Saulnier M.S.406. Specified 1934. (same as the MB.150). First flight 1938. Introduced 1938.
- Arsenal VG-33. Specified 1936. First flight 1939. Introduced 1940.
- Dewoitine D.520. Specified 1936 (same as the VG-33). First flight 1938. Introduced 1940.
- Caudron C.714. Specified 1936 (same as VG-33). First flight 1936. Introduced 1940.
- Koolhoven F.K.58. Specified 1937. Ordered from Dutch firm. First flight 1938. Introduced 1940.
The 1937 Specification also led to the SNCAO 200 and Potez 230, but neither was produced. If these two firms in addition to producing their existing aircraft have capacity to make a new fighter, and given the circumstances wouldn't it have been more prudent to tell SNCAO and Potez to focus on making D.520s or VG-33s?
For example, in 1938 the superlative Dewoitine D.520 first flies. This is a year before the laggardly Bloch MB.150 enters service. Could some Grande Fromage have said, hey Marcel, I want you to switch your plant over to this Dewoitine when it's ready?