ETO Fighters 1939-1942 Part 2 -Which would you fly?

[Arsenal VG-33]

This is something of a follow-up to DerAdler's poll on the Best ETO Fighters 1939-1942. This time it's a choice of the lesser known aircrafts, of countries other than the US-UK-GER. These aircraft did not have the advantage of further modifications and upgrades as the more famous fighters we have all become familiar with.

I included only aircraft which saw frontline service, from the following countries: France, Poland, Holland, Russia, Yugoslavia, Romania, and Italy.

 

[Marcel]

Better add a poll then

 

[Arsenal VG-33]

Better add a poll then

I have it now. My first time at this, took me a minute to realize the answers I needed were in the FAQ section!


I chose the Caudron C. 714, only because I like crappy, half-wood and half metal "desperation weapons" that could give anyone a challenge.

 

[Marcel]

Very good. I voted Fokker G.I, partly because I'm quite biased towards this machine . I still think it was a very promising machine. Very versatile, manouvrable, heavy weapons for the time, one of the first multirole airplanes. Fokker has considered fitting it with RR merlins which would have given the dutch a mossie-like plane already in 1940. Unfortunately because of great misjuging from the dutch government, it could never develope it great potential.

 

[joy17782]

the d-520 was a good lookin plane and could hold its own, but the french miltary only let it operate too protect its aircraft industry i wonder what the hell they were thinking would it have been better used over the sedan crossing chaseing down stukas or me 109s but a plane is only as good as the pilots> never forget this<

 

[Soren]

My favor tends to be with the Italian planes, I really admire Reggiane 2000 series, esp. the 2005, the Ferrari of the fighter world in WW2

 

[Njaco]

I chose the D 520. The Russian and Italian a/c have a good history but I thought the 520 presented itself well early in the war. The G1 was to have promise but don't know if it got a chance to tangle with the Luftwaffe.

 

[Konigstiger205]

I have to go with the IAR 80 for the simple fact that was made by my country in the time when we could still produce a plane that would be a challenge in the hands of a good pilot...

 

[Desert Fox]

I am going for the Macchi 202. It's a beautiful and deadly aeroplane, that could give the Spitfire a run for its money

 

[Wurger]

Although I like PZL P-24 and as Greek Air Force history shows it could meet Italian planes my vote goes to D-520.

 

[Chocks away!]

I'm Greek so I would have voted for the Pzl.
But since this is about which is the best aircraft, my obvious choice is the
MC 202 Folgore.

 

[eddie_brunette]

I go for the LaGG-3!!

The main reason, it would be replaced by the brillaint LaGG-5!!

General characteristics
Crew: One
Length: 8.81 m (28 ft 11 in)
Wingspan: 9.80 m (32 ft 1.75 in)
Height: 2.54 m (8 ft 4 in)
Wing area: 17.4 m² (188 ft²)
Empty weight: 2,205 kg (4,851 lb)
Loaded weight: 2,620 kg (5,764 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 3,190 kg (7,018 lb)
Powerplant: 1× Klimov M-105PF liquid-cooled V-12, 924 kW (1,260 hp)
Performance
Maximum speed: 575 km/h (357 mph)
Range: 1000 km (621 mi)
Service ceiling 9,700 m (31,825 ft)
Rate of climb: 14.9 m/s (2,926 ft/min)
Wing loading: 150 kg/m² (31 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 350 W/kg (0.21 hp/lb)
Armament
2× 12.7 mm (0.50 in) Berezin BS machine guns
1× 20 mm ShVAK cannon
6× RS-82 or RS-132 rockets up a total of 200kg (441 lb)

 

[claidemore]

Good on ya Eddie! Glad to see somebody chose the LaGG3.

I don't think this plane gets enough attention. Though it was not universally liked by pilots, and was too heavy for the Klimov M-105 engine, it did it's job, much like the P40 did.

My choice would be the Yak-1. Same engine as the LaGG3, but a lighter more agile plane. In the paraphrased words of the Soviet pilots who flew it, "It was almost as good as a Messerschmitt." Since the Me109 was, and still is, widely regarded as the best fighter of WWII, the Yak-1 being 'almost as good', is pretty high praise, IMO.

 

[Glider]

I went for the IAR 80. It had a good performance and was pretty agile and in its last version was quite well armed.
Its a good reminder that the smaller countries around the world were capable of building capable aircraft, a point often overlooked.

 

[Tombo]

I also voted for IAR 80.I like its prerformence when I tried it in IL-2,and it looks good to.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I am going to have to jump on the band wagon here and go with the 202. I think the Italians had the right designs but there aircraft just never reached there full potential.