Shortround6
Lieutenant General
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.
Could France make due with just two fighters?
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Main advantage over the Ms 406, especially in this scenario, is that is not competing for the HS 12Y engines.
- Thread starter
- #22
Admiral Beez
Major
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.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
It is only an economy of scale if you build a larger engine factory or additional engine factories.
3 of your 6 fighters used the Hispano 12Y.
2 used the Gnome-Rhone
1 used a Renault air cooled V-12 of 500hp and was never going to be a 1st rate fighter.
It took about 2 years to go from a bare plot of ground to a factory turning out hundreds of engines a month.
And be careful of what you ask for, you just might get it.
From Old Machine Press.
"Ironically, delays with acquiring enough non-strategic spruce resulted in the first production VG 33 aircraft not making its first flight until 21 April 1940 "
This is after
"Before the flight trials were over, the Air Ministry ordered at least 200 VG 33s in September 1939. Another purchase request was submitted a short time later placing a total of approximately 720 VG 33 aircraft on order. The first deliveries were scheduled for January 1940, and the first fighter group equipped with VG 33 aircraft was to be operational in April 1940. "
So when does France have to decide on the VG 33? Before the first VG 33 Prototype even flies?
3 of your 6 fighters used the Hispano 12Y.
2 used the Gnome-Rhone
1 used a Renault air cooled V-12 of 500hp and was never going to be a 1st rate fighter.
It took about 2 years to go from a bare plot of ground to a factory turning out hundreds of engines a month.
And be careful of what you ask for, you just might get it.
From Old Machine Press.
"Ironically, delays with acquiring enough non-strategic spruce resulted in the first production VG 33 aircraft not making its first flight until 21 April 1940 "
This is after
"Before the flight trials were over, the Air Ministry ordered at least 200 VG 33s in September 1939. Another purchase request was submitted a short time later placing a total of approximately 720 VG 33 aircraft on order. The first deliveries were scheduled for January 1940, and the first fighter group equipped with VG 33 aircraft was to be operational in April 1940. "
So when does France have to decide on the VG 33? Before the first VG 33 Prototype even flies?
Kevin J
Banned
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.
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 know that the Hisso 12Y is an inadequate engine, even in the D.520 and Dewoitine had negotiated to get it powered by the Allison V-1710 and Rolls-Royce Merlin, with Hives agreeing to Merlin production in France. A single example was fitted with a Merlin X before France was overrun by the Germans. Nonetheless, without Merlin production or the supply of Allisons it has to make do with the Hisso.
Then there is the issue with production. It could and should have appeared earlier than it did. Dewoitine was inducted into one of the state owned manufacturing companies (SNCAM) and inexplicably, throughout most of 1937, little effort was put into developing the type.
The D.520 was a bit of a handful to fly and is known to have been very difficult to handle on the ground, but it was an advanced design incorporating novel features for its time. It had a engine fire supression system, which had to be activated manually, but still, this was very unusual. It was designed for ease of maintenance and construction (so, why oh why did it take so long, French pre-war government?!), with quick removeable panels and doors - reloading its guns took mere minutes and was quickly achieved, reportedly.
Performance wise it was slower than its European contemporaries, but could out-manoeuvre most of them, including the Bf 109 and it had a greater range than anything else in Europe in service at the time; around 780 miles, with a ferry range of over 900 miles. It had a self-sealing fuel tank ahead of the cockpit, why the nose was so long, and two more tanks, one in each wing.
The more I learn about this little machine, the more I like it - it has character. This survivor at the Musee de l'Air is in the markings of No.277 flown by the type's leading protagonist, Pierre Le Gloan, who scored victories against German, Italian and British aircraft during the war.
Europe 07
Then there is the issue with production. It could and should have appeared earlier than it did. Dewoitine was inducted into one of the state owned manufacturing companies (SNCAM) and inexplicably, throughout most of 1937, little effort was put into developing the type.
The D.520 was a bit of a handful to fly and is known to have been very difficult to handle on the ground, but it was an advanced design incorporating novel features for its time. It had a engine fire supression system, which had to be activated manually, but still, this was very unusual. It was designed for ease of maintenance and construction (so, why oh why did it take so long, French pre-war government?!), with quick removeable panels and doors - reloading its guns took mere minutes and was quickly achieved, reportedly.
Performance wise it was slower than its European contemporaries, but could out-manoeuvre most of them, including the Bf 109 and it had a greater range than anything else in Europe in service at the time; around 780 miles, with a ferry range of over 900 miles. It had a self-sealing fuel tank ahead of the cockpit, why the nose was so long, and two more tanks, one in each wing.
The more I learn about this little machine, the more I like it - it has character. This survivor at the Musee de l'Air is in the markings of No.277 flown by the type's leading protagonist, Pierre Le Gloan, who scored victories against German, Italian and British aircraft during the war.
- Thread starter
- #26
Admiral Beez
Major
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.
Images courtesy of DEWOITINE D.790
Images courtesy of DEWOITINE D.790
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Winkle Brown said the D520 was very prone to ground looping and had a vicious stall. Unless those faults are cured it's going to be a nightmare on the new smallish French carriers.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
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
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
- Thread starter
- #29
Admiral Beez
Major
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
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
The VG-33 seems to be a bit of a wonder plane.
It had a wing of about 150 sq ft compared to the 170-171 of the D 520 if common sources are to be believed, and with the same, guns/ammo/military equipment and a slightly different version of the same engine it weighed within 50-60lbs for normal gross weight? A bit higher stalling speed perhaps?
Wood structure at sea?
View over the nose looks better than a D 520 but still doesn't look good.
It had a wing of about 150 sq ft compared to the 170-171 of the D 520 if common sources are to be believed, and with the same, guns/ammo/military equipment and a slightly different version of the same engine it weighed within 50-60lbs for normal gross weight? A bit higher stalling speed perhaps?
Wood structure at sea?
View over the nose looks better than a D 520 but still doesn't look good.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Whatever you say about the VG33 it was a beautiful bird.
- Thread starter
- #32
Admiral Beez
Major
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.
Most definitely, but considering the actual number of VG.33s was ten combat worthy examples (see below), it was definitely too little too late. There was a plan to fit one with an Allison V-1710, like the D.520, but again, stalled owing to the lack of an engine and the invasion. It was a planned replacement for the MS.406, so concentrating production on both types would have made sense, but the availability of the D.520 makes more sense, if not its wayward handling.
https://www.passionair1940.fr/Armee%20de%20l%27Air/Appareils/Chasse/Arsenal-VG33/EN-Arsenal-VG33.htm
AND the A5M, to be followed by the A6M.
- Thread starter
- #36
Admiral Beez
Major
True, but I was referring to Air Force, not naval fighters.
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.
The organizations were different, the combat not so much.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Better looking yes, better operationally ?????
The VG 33 only had a 150 sq ft wing. about 88% if the area of D 520 for a plane that weighed about 100lbs less.
Granted when designed it was supposed to use the Potez D 12 engine but the French came to their senses (somewhat) and decided that a flat 12 air cooled engine of about 500hp (and 1072 cu in) was really a first class power plant even if it did only weigh around 330 kg.
When they couldn't get an airworthy example of this engine they switched to a Hispano Xcrs engine. This was the 12Ys little brother with a 130 mm bore instead of a 150mm bore. It is also about 130lbs lighter but doesn't make as much power.
I would also note that all pictures of the VG 33 showit using a tail skid, how much of a problem this would be I don't know.
Thanks for using dates. For Comparison
1 Bf 109 first flight May 1935.
2 Bf 109 wins competition against He 112, 1936.
3 Bf 109A/B with Jumo 210 engines fly combat in Spain ,1937.
4 Bf 109 V14 with DB600/601 flies in 1937
5 Me 109 E1 with DB601 enters production in late 1938.
So the Me 109E is a second generation Bf 109A/B/D and still had an earlier first flight than much of the French fighters.
The much vaunted D.520 actually had terrible handling due to a vicious sudden stall. Subsequent variants no doubt would have fixed this in due course but there was little time.
The Germans clearly focused their efforts on one type and they did the right thing but they also started earlier.
It's said the French dispersed their efforts among too many types but it appears they also had industrial relations problems. Then there is also the issue of engine production especially of the HS-12Y which is down about 100hp on the DB601A and also seems in short supply.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
It is easy to say "standardize on one fighter" it is somewhat harder to do. And sometimes it is not all that efficient.
Bf 109s were made in a lot of factories by something like 7 companies (?). Sometimes in rather small batches, like 40 planes (?).
ensuring that all planes/parts were pretty much interchangeable could be a problem. setting up 5-8 production lines is also rather wasteful in resources instead of concentrating production in 2-4 locations.
For the French the Bloch 150-152 took some of the strain off Hispano Suiza production.
There is also timing, waiting for the Arsenal VG 33 means hundreds less fighters to actually use. Some of these fighters turned into MS 406 replacements. French realized the MS 406 had limited development.
Bf 109s were made in a lot of factories by something like 7 companies (?). Sometimes in rather small batches, like 40 planes (?).
ensuring that all planes/parts were pretty much interchangeable could be a problem. setting up 5-8 production lines is also rather wasteful in resources instead of concentrating production in 2-4 locations.
For the French the Bloch 150-152 took some of the strain off Hispano Suiza production.
There is also timing, waiting for the Arsenal VG 33 means hundreds less fighters to actually use. Some of these fighters turned into MS 406 replacements. French realized the MS 406 had limited development.
