If you had an airforce... (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Kinda raises a good question that perhaps deserves its own thread...."Best fighter produced by a minor nation"..."Best bomber by a minor" etc

For me the best fighter by a minor was probably the Swedish J-22. The best one to get into action was probably the Rumanian fighter IAR-80. The yugolslavs were also producing a decent fighter at the time they were overrun (IK-5 from memory). Even my own country produced a respectable fighter essentially from trainer airframe and engine parts, at a time when the country could not even build auto engines
 
Hello Parsifal
Yes J-22 was a good fighter for its engine power but as a couple J-26 (P-51D) pilots showed to the up to then very satisfied J-22 project team it was in rather hopeless position against much faster and much better climbing J-26s if the latter play the play right. That is true to all low powered fighters. And that was the problem of minor nations, they probably would not be able to produce as powerful engines than major powers.

Juha
 
The G.I would be a bit expensive/resourse intensive for that though. (being close to the size of the Blenheim)

An excelent hypothetical engine for Finland or other smaller country would be the Pratt Whitney R-2000 Twin Wasp, a simplified R-1830 with increased bore and reduced compression designed to run on 87 octane fuel. Being similar in size and weight to the R-1830, but somewhat simpler to build and easier to maintain. On 87 octane fuel, it produced 1,300 hp for take-off.


The Yak and La-5 are pretty short ranged though (even with drop tanks) so there'd still be a need for a fighter for escort on some of the longer range bomber raids. (possibly the LaGG-3, but that would still seem a bit short perhaps if larger drop-tanks could be fitted)
 
Finns nearly bought G.1s, our test pilot liked the plane but the C-in-C of FAF thought that the plane was too expensive and when in autumn 39 we were ready to pay the price Fokker asked Fokker could not find enough engines for the series. FAF thought the plane foremost as an heavy interceptor but also as a light bomber.
As CAS plane maybe too big and IIRC with unprotected fuel tanks too vulnerable. IMHO in our heavily forested area a proper dive bomber would have been better. A Finnish test pilot test flew a Vought V-167F (SB2U-1) in France in 1938 or 39 but nothing came out of that maybe because of lack of funds, I cannot remember exact reasons.

Juha
 
Hmmm, if the Dutch as a small Aitforce could use it, so could the Finns I suppose.
Fokker G.I was also developed as a divebomber. The dutch wanted to use it as an CAS plane as well. As an interceptor, it was simple to slow with the Bristol engines.
G.I with divebrakes:
55043.jpg
 
The size and engine requirements were on thing, but I was also thinking in material availability. Such that it could be manufactured by the Finns and not just purchased. (many planes the Finns used would not have been practcal for them to build, like the all-metal Curtiss Hawk 75, and Brewster B-239)

I forgot the G.I used mixed construction (though there was still a fair amount of aluminum, but much less than, say, The Blenheim), which makes it more practical than I was thinking.

The multirole capabilities would be good too, useful as an interceptor and light bomber bomber. (and possibly dive-bomber) It wouldn't be a great dogfighter, but as I recal it was still fairly maneuverable for its size.
 
Marcel
IIRC G.1A max speed was 475km/h, so it was faster than D.XXI. And yes I know it has dive bombing capacity but I doubt it would have been as accurate dive bomber as SBD or SB2U and IIRC the max bomb size was smaller and one needs rather heavy bombs when targeting bridges etc.

KK, IIRC the Finnish test pilot found out G.1 fairly manoeuvrable.

Juha
 
Marcel
IIRC G.1A max speed was 475km/h, so it was faster than D.XXI. And yes I know it has dive bombing capacity but I doubt it would have been as accurate dive bomber as SBD or SB2U and IIRC the max bomb size was smaller and one needs rather heavy bombs when targeting bridges etc.

KK, IIRC the Finnish test pilot found out G.1 fairly manoeuvrable.

Juha

Yes, but the advantage of the D.XXI over the G.I was that it could climb like hell, and the G.I couldn't. Climbing is very impotant for an interceptor. The Dutch developed the G.I as an air cruiser, a plane which would be in hte air patroling, instead of scrambling when the enemy was in sight. As a matter of fact, the D.XXI was considered unsuitable for the interceptor role as well, being to slow. Therefore they were planning for a fast interceptor, for which the He112 and the Spitfire were considered amongst others.

I don't know why you think it would be less accurate. The bomb load was smaller, that's true, so it is possibly not suitable for bridges indeed. But the G.I would be very effective against enemy ground forces, being able to bomb them, strafe them (lots of fire-power) and hold it's own against enemy fighters, so it wouldn't need much escort, while the SBD would. And as KK says, it was a mixed construct, which would not so much drain the strategic resources.
 
Hello Marcel
I would not say that D.XXI "could climb like hell". It had reasonable climb rate for its day but unfortunately its opponents like Bf 109E, I-153 and I-16 had even better. Interceptor was maybe a wrong term for G.1 use foreseen by FAF. Idea was to use it against bombers over inner Finland.

IMHO single engined dive bombers tended to be more accurate than twins. I cannot recall any test results on the accuracy of G.1 as a dive bomber.

Juha
 
Hi Juha, I've read something different about the D.XXI, being able to outclimb the Bf109, but don't remember where. I'll try to look it up. And see if I can get some actual data.

The test data of the G.I on dive bombing was probably destroyed when the Germans invaded. But I'll try and see if anything is known at the G.I foundation.
 
Hello Marcel
according to Finnish D. XXI test flights data and the usually in literature seen climb rate of Bf 109E, the latter climbed better. Also during the Winter War Finns noticed that I-153 and I-16 climbed better.

On G.1 as dive bomber. The Finnish test pilot test flew the same a/c on which you posted a photo, namely 302. According to Ehrnrooth, the test pilot, dive brakes limited the diving speed to 510km/h. Swedish dive bombing specialist captain Bjuggren was satisfied to G.1 as a dive bomber. On the other hand the diving speed of SBD-5 was 445 km/h , according to Eric Brown. And SBD's ailerons remained light at that speed when those of G.1 were heavy at high speeds according to Ehrnrooth. IMHO those facts indicate thats even if G.1 was capable to dive bombing it was not as accurate dive bomber as SBD.

Juha
 
Hi Juha,

I didn't know Finland also tested the 302. Thanks for the info :thumbright:
Based on this info I agree with you, the G.I would not be as good as dive bomber as the SBD.
I still didn't find the test data on the D.XXI, so for now I go with your figures.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back