Light fighters alternatives, 1935-1945

[tomo pauk]

Light fighters are kind of a discussion of their own worth having, IMO.

Something like this?

 

[bf109xxl]

A hopeless pointless concept, a waste of resources and time. It's not even an alternative. All projects within the framework of this concept were flawed - including the rather interesting SAM-13 of Moskalev's design.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

I don't have time to wade into this now, but I can roughly sketch out a premise:

We have the assumption in the Anglophone world (and the multi-lingual but Anglophone adjacent worlds ) that more power, more guns, more armor was the only way to victory in WW2. I don't think that is necessarily the case though, and a let's say 'revisionist' approach to the history of aircraft like the A6M, Ki-43, MC 202, Yak-1B, Yak 3, La 5FN etc., and then by contrast the P-47, Typhoon, Bf 110 / 210 / 410, Ki-45, yes even the Corsair and P-38 based on their operational histories, tells us that perhaps there was another way- a lighter way.

Operational history tells us that lighter aircraft with fewer guns and a bit less speed or high altitude dominance could also be effective. Whether you needed to be highest and fastest in every scenario depended a lot on the nature of the battlefield and the Theater. Strategic bombing campaigns were not the only way to victory, and where there was a big ground war (or a naval war) going on below the skies, tactical bombers and attack aircraft were much more important (arguably) than big high flying heavy bombers. Which meant that fighters needed to be able to perform better down low, and needed to be agile enough to win sustained fights around the smaller tactical dive bombers and attack planes.

So there are two tiers to this perhaps. First, we have the known to be successful 'lighter fighters', then we have the more experimental truly 'light fighters' with smaller engines, less guns, maybe non-strategic materials etc., which for the most part, never got real investment or were abandoned by the later war. These would generally be under 3,000 kg gross weight, mostly not used or saw minimal action during the war, mostly using smaller than typical engines (sometimes really achieving a lot in terms of speed with quite small engines ~500 hp etc.) and with small production ranging from just a prototype to maybe 300 or 400 produced. There is obviously some overlap between the two groups, as anything which saw widespread military service goes in the first group.

I probably missed quite a few but I'm out of time ... this gives us something to think about though.

Lighter Fighters might include:
A5M
A6M (A6M2 gross weight 2796 kg)
Ki-27
Ki-43
MC 200
MC 202 (MC.202CB Serie IV-VIII gross weight 2,930 kg, top speed 370 mph)
P-36 / Hawk 75 (P-36A gross weight 2,563 kg, top speed 313 mph)
Yak -1B / 7B
Yak - 9
Yak - 3
La-5 / 5F / 5FN
early BF 109 (D probably qualifies, but perhaps F-2 is the pinnacle of this for the Germans)
Dewoitine D.520
MS 406
IAR 80 (IAR 81C max weight 3,030 kg, top speed 320 mph)
Polikarpov I-16
Reggiane Re.2000
Mitsubishi F1M float plane fighter (F1M2 Gross weight 2,550 kg, top speed 230 mph)

Light Fighters might include
Caudron 714 (gross weight 1,880 kg, 500 hp Renault 12R-03 engine, top speed 290 mph)
Potez 230 (gross weight 1800 kg, 670 hp HS 12X engine, top speed 350 mph)
Roussel R-30 (gross weight 1,768 kg, 690 Gnome Rhone 14M-7 engine, top speed 320 mph)
ANF Les Mureaux 190 (gross weight 1290 kg, 450 Salmson 12 Vars engine, top speed 310 mph)
Curtiss CW-21 (CW 21B gross weight 2,041 kg, 850 hp Wright R-1820 engine, 314 mph)
Ambrosini SAI.207 (gross weight 2,415 kg, 750 hp Isotta-Fraschini Delta III engine, top speed 398 mph)
Ambrosini SAI.403 (gross weight 2,643 kg, 750 hp Isotta-Fraschini RC 21/60 engine, top speed 403 mph)
Miles M.20 (M.20/4 gross weight 3,519 kg, 1,260 hp RR Merlin XX engine, top speed 350 mph)
Martin Baker MB 2 (gross weight 2,512 kg, 1,000 hp Napier Dagger engine, top speed 305 mph)
Bristol Type 148 (gross weight 2,380 kg, 1050 hp Bristol Taurus II engine, 290 mph)
Gloster F.5/34 (gross weight 2,449 kg, 840 hp Bristol Mercury IX engine, 316 mph)
VEF I-16 (gross weight 1550 kg, 535 Walter Sagitta I-SR engine, top speed 300 mph)
PZL.50 (PZL.50/I gross weight 2,400 kg, 825 PZL Bristol Merkury VIII engine, top speed 270 mph)
Fokker D.XXI (gross weight 1,970 kg, 830 hp Bristol Mercury engine, top speed 290 mph)
Koolhoven F.K.58 (I could only find empty weight which is 1,810 kg, 1,080 hp HS 14AA-10 engine, top speed 300 mph)
Avia B.135 (gross weight 2,547 kg, 860 hp HS 12Y engine top speed 332 mph)
Arsenal VG.33 (gross weight 2,448 kg, 860 hp HS 12Y engine, top speed 344 mph)

The careers of the lighter fighters, many of which were highly successful designs, gives us perhaps some idea of the potential of some of the 'light fighters'. Many of these could have never been produced because they used experimental engines or were made by tiny countries that were out of the war very quickly. We know from the Mosquito and some of the Soviet fighters that wooden construction was not necessarily a dead end. Lets also remember that WW2 lasted a while, and some designs may have worked in 1938 or 1940 but not necessarily in 1945, but that doesn't automatically mean they weren't viable designs.

Many of these designs did seem to possibly have some potential but didn't get the sustained development that getting a fighter into service really took.

A lot of these were quite interesting and innovative designs from a purely aeronautic engineering perspective and fun to explore, so perhaps for that reason alone it's worth a look.

There are also some 'lighter' twin engined types, like the Gloster F.9/37 and the Westland Whirlwind that don't qualify as light due to their weight, but did a lot with smaller engines

 

[Steamed_Banana]

For the later end of the war, we could also perhaps include the He 162 jet

Gross weight 2,800 kg, 1760 lbf thrust BMW 109 jet engine, 520 mph

 

[bf109xxl]

For the later end of the war, we could also perhaps include the He 162 jet

Gross weight 2,800 kg, 1760 lbf thrust BMW 109 jet engine, 520 mph

The light fighter concept is the C.710/713/714, not even the C.760/770 fit into it anymore. In its purest form, these are exclusively French designs, and the Soviet twin-engine SAM-13 can be included as an exception.
Attributes of the concept: engine(s) <700 hp and weight <2000 kg.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

The light fighter concept is the C.710/713/714, not even the C.760/770 fit into it anymore. In its purest form, these are exclusively French designs, and the Soviet twin-engine SAM-13 can be included as an exception.
Attributes of the concept: engine(s) <700 hp and weight <2000 kg.

I think most of the fighters I linked in my grouping above, like the CW 21 and the Arsenal VG.30 / 33 / 39 series, the D.XXI and the Koolhaven fighter, the Ambrosini fighters etc. etc. were all explicitly designed as light fighters. You can try to define it out of existence since you clearly don't like the idea, but that does not make it so.

 

[bf109xxl]

I think most of the fighters I linked in my grouping above, like the CW 21 and the Arsenal VG.30 / 33 / 39 series, the D.XXI and the Koolhaven fighter, the Ambrosini fighters etc. etc. were all explicitly designed as light fighters. You can try to define it out of existence since you clearly don't like the idea, but that does not make it so.

The D.XXI was quite a "conventional" fighter, the VG.30 grew from a "light fighter" to a "full-sized" VG.33C-1 very quickly, the CW-21 can be recognized as an American version of a "light fighter" given the spectrum of American engine power and aircraft weight.
And all these airplanes had no perspective - neither application nor development.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

The D.XXI was quite a "conventional" fighter,

D.XXI was designed as a light weight (under 2,000 kg), cheap export fighter, made of plywood, intended to be very simple to maintain and operate in the types of conditions found in the most far flung colonies. Same with the Koolhaven. They were not designed for home defense or for main line air superiority. IMO it's the very definition of a 'light figher'.

the VG.30 grew from a "light fighter" to a "full-sized" VG.33C-1 very quickly,

Only if you are using a very specific arbitrary definition which I did not use. The VG.33 was made of wood and designed for cheap construction, and at 2,448 kg gross weight was still considerably lighter than many of it's most prominent contemporaries. A Wildcat was 3,300 kg, Hurricane Mk II was 3,480 kg+, Spitfire Mk 1 was 2800 kg, Spitfire Mk V was 3,000 kg, Bf 109E ~3,300 kg, BF 110 ~6,000 kg etc.

the CW-21 can be recognized as an American version of a "light fighter" given the spectrum of American engine power and aircraft weight.

This opens up the issue of how do we define 'the thing'. US tended to make heavier fighters, Japan, France, Soviet Union and Italy tended to make lighter ones. UK and Germany were somewhere in between. Fighters also got heavier as the war went on, so as I noted in my first post, a design which is viable in 1938 or 1940 may not be viable in 1944 or 45, but still can be considered a success.

A light fighter which is developed somewhat more will also likely end up a bit heavier. But IMO anything below 3,000 kg by 1940 probably still qualifies as far as the weight criteria goes.

And all these airplanes had no perspective - neither application nor development.

Well that was literally the arbitrary criteria i defined for that second list. However, as I pointed out, there is considerable overlap. And there are fighters in the first list which meet your weight criteria for the second (i.e. a 'light fighter' and not just a 'lighter fighter') like for example the Japanese Army Ki-27 fighter, with a gross weight of 1,790 kg, which was very successful in the early part of the war. The A5M "Claude" at 1,671 kg gross weight was also a successful fighter in the early war.

If the CW-21 qualifies as a 'light fighter' by the US standards, which I agree it does, then I would say so does the P-36 / Hawk 75, which was only 2,500 kg gross weight, (compare to a P-47 at 6,000 kg, Hellcat at 5,700 kg, P-38 at 7,900 kg etc.), and yet was still being successfully used in combat by the British in 1944.

Some ones I forgot on my original list for 'lighter fighters' but which fall under 2,000 kg gross weight

Fiat CR.32 at 1,975 kg, which was used successfully in North Africa in the early part of WW2 as well as in the Spanish Civil War.
I-15 at 1,385 kg used with limited success in China and in Russia, and in the Spanish Civil War
I-153 at 1,960 kg used with a bit more if still limited success in the same two Theaters, and in the Spanish Civil War
The I-16 was on my list but it's well worth pointing out here that the late model I-16/24 weighed 1,941 kg gross, putting it under your weight criteria for a light fighter. And it saw some success especially in China and in the Spanish Civil War.
Gloster Gladiator at just over 2,000 kg is right on the line, used quite a bit in the early part of WW2 and with some success.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

I see the time element working like this -

If it is a relatively simple, light-weight early war design which still has a niche in the later war, then to me it also qualifies as a 'light fighter'. So like the P-36 / Mohawk being used in Burma in 1943 and 1944, or the Ki-43, or the I-153 being used in ground attack in Russia long after it's fighter heyday. Same for the CR.42 by the Italians.

This also applies to some non-fighters like the Fairey Swordish, the HS 123 attack plane, the Ki-51 light bomber etc. but that takes us well beyond fighters.

 

[bf109xxl]

D.XXI was designed as a light weight, cheap export fighter, made of plywood, intended to be very simple to maintain and operate in the types of conditions found in the most far flung colonies. Same with the Koolhaven. They were not designed for home defense or for main line air superiority. IMO it's the very definition of a 'light figher'.

The D.XXI was not "light" in 1935-1936 - it was quite a full-size fighter, albeit a cheap one. In terms of size, the D.XXI was almost identical to the Yak-1, which was quite "full-size". The D.XXI was intended for colonial use, but not under the concept of a "light fighter", but rather only a "cheap" fighter.
The "light fighter" design competition was the summer of 1936, at which time a year's difference in the start of the design was of great importance.

Only if you are using a very specific arbitrary definition which I did not use. The VG.33 was made of wood and designed for cheap construction, and at 2,448 kg gross weight was still considerably lighter than many of it's most prominent contemporaries.

It was only significantly lighter in weight compared to American carrier-based fighters - compared to them almost all were lighter in weight. The VG-33 was heavier than the contemporary Bf109C-E.

A Wildcat was 3,300 kg, Hurricane Mk II was 3,480 kg+, Spitfire Mk 1 was 2800 kg, Spitfire Mk V was 3,000 kg, Bf 109E ~3,300 kg, BF 110 ~6,000 kg etc.

Bf.109E - 2500, Spitfire Mk V, Hurricane Mk II - late 1940. Thus, the VG-33 is well within the concept of a full-size fighter in 1937- early 1940.

This opens up the issue of how do we define 'the thing'. US tended to make heavier fighters, Japan, France, Soviet Union and Italy tended to make lighter ones. UK and Germany were somewhere in between. Fighters also got heavier as the war went on, so as I noted in my first post, a design which is viable in 1938 or 1940 may not be viable in 1944 or 45, but still can be considered a success.

None of the designs within the concept of "light fighter" could be successful already at the end of 1940 - it was clear to all, and the Soviets, and the Finns, and, in fact, the French. It was a complete dead end, which did not allow the installation of landing gear suitable for actual operation, equipment, etc. Only extreme need and low technological complexity of production could justify the use of "light fighters" already at the end of 1940.

A light fighter which is developed somewhat more will also likely end up a bit heavier. But IMO anything below 3,000 kg by 1940 probably still qualifies as far as the weight criteria goes.

3000 in 1940 - a "full-sized" fighter.

like for example the Japanese Army Ki-27 fighter, with a gross weight of 1,790 kg, which was very successful in the early part of the war. The A5M "Claude" at 1,671 kg gross weight was also a successful fighter in the early war.

Design began in 1934-1935, and at that time they were full-size fighters.

Fiat CR.32 at 1,975 kg, which was used successfully in North Africa in the early part of WW2 as well as in the Spanish Civil War.I-15 at 1,385 kg used with limited success in China and in Russia, and in the Spanish Civil War
I-153 at 1,960 kg used with a bit more if still limited success in the same two Theaters, and in the Spanish Civil War
The I-16 was on my list but it's well worth pointing out here that the late model I-16/24 weighed 1,941 kg gross, putting it under your weight criteria for a light fighter. And it saw some success especially in China and in the Spanish Civil War.
Gloster Gladiator at just over 2,000 kg is right on the line, used quite a bit in the early part of WW2 and with some success.

All were designed as full-size fighters with engines of maximum available power at the time of development.

 

[Dimlee]

Interesting topic, which is difficult to discuss without setting the definitions first.
But kudos to everyone for attempting!

 

[Steamed_Banana]

I did set the definitions I when I made my first post, "bf109xxl" is just playing the usual disingenuous internet game, for whatever purpose (if he even knows of one). But I don't really have time for this even if it was fun and interesting, and I am definitely not really interested in this type of bad faith discussion.

If anyone does have time and wants to try to discuss it, I think my first post here (and subsequent followups) are sufficient to start having one.

 

[bf109xxl]

Toward the question of definitions.
The concept of the "light fighter" did not exist in itself - it emerged as an alternative to the "conventional" fighter. The main feature of this concept is the deliberate use of a less powerful engine when more powerful engines are available for the "conventional" fighter. The forced use of less powerful engines while retaining the option of installing more powerful engines - as on the D.XXI - should not be considered.
This is a crucial distinction, all others are not so unambiguous.

 

[tomo pauk]

<snip>

Thank you for playing the ball.

 

[SaparotRob]

A light fighter, to me, would be something like the XP-77 or that "racer" looking lightweight plane whose name I can't remember. As bf109xxl mentioned, no room for development.

 

[tomo pauk]

Interesting topic, which is difficult to discuss without setting the definitions first.

Quirk is that a light fighter that US government might've bought would've been a 'full size' fighter in the USSR. So one definition will not fit all the parts of the world. What is a light fighter also changed with time.
But we can try with the more localized definitions, that are not absolute but relative. A fighter that weights 70-75% of what the current in-production fighter weights, while providing 70-75% firepower and similar range? Eg. the Bf 109E-3 was at ~2600 kg clean, so a light German fighter fit for this thread for late 1938 to late 1940 should weight 1900-2000 kg and have perhaps one MG FF + 4 MG 17s? If the fighter has engines of yesterday and can be made in the factories and by the workforce that is not seasoned in working with light alloys, and it fits the 'light' guidance, even better.

 

[bf109xxl]

Seems the thread should just be renamed "Alternative single-engine WWII fighters for all countries except the US" and there would be no difficulty with definitions.

 

[Shortround6]

Well, we have done this a few times before

And there are several hiccups when we try to come up with definitions.
A big one is simply time. What was standard weight in 1936/37 was often "light weight" in 1940. So which is it?
And does changing the engine bounce a plane from "light" to "Standard weight?
Like.

P-36 / Hawk 75 (P-36A gross weight 2,563 kg, top speed 313 mph)

The P-36/ Hawk 75 is a really great plane as with a little selective selection you can often prove most any thing you want.
The Hawk 75 first flew In April 1935 and grossed 4843lbs (2187kg) and had top speed of 281 mph and had two .30 cal machineguns.
Unfortunately it used an Experimental Wright 14 cylinder engine that went nowhere and the search for newer and better engines began and the weight gain saga began.
however a breakdown of the weight of the fixed landing gear Hawk 75H is rather instructive.
Wing............................... 780lbs
Tail....................................107lbs
Landing gear................342lbs
Fuselage.........................467lbs
Airframe weight.........1696lbs
Powerplant weight....1893lbs
Fixed equipment..........386lbs
Empty weight...............3975lbs

Normal useful load..1330lbs
Normal gross..............5305lbs
The useful load consisted of
Pilot.................................200lbs
Fuel (120 US gal)........720lbs
Oil.....................................68lbs
Guns/ammo.................174lb
Radio...............................100lbs
Oxygen system.............15lbs
Signal pistol.....................8lbs
Flairs (landing)...............50lbs

The engine was an 875hp Wright Cyclone R-1820
The guns were one .50 cal machine gun with 200 rounds and one .30 cal with 600 rounds.
Speed with fixed gear was 280mph at 10,700ft.

Now for our "light fighter" we can reduce the useful load by taking out some things, like the chubby pilot
Some of the fuel and oil. Taking out the .50 cal gun and replacing with a .30 cal (two .30 cal total?)
Radios are over rated
We won't fly at night so we won't need landing flares

early BF 109 (D probably qualifies, but perhaps F-2 is the pinnacle of this for the Germans)

Change from 109C/D to 109E was about 450kg, mostly due the DB 601 engine and accessories (and fuel). But the bigger engine allowed for almost 100kph more speed.
The 109E-3 weighed 2608kg, useful load was 555kg (1224lbs) But the 109E carried a bit less fuel but more guns/ammo than old Curtiss.


I am sorry, I am failing to follow the logic of an old obsolete aircraft being being demoted to ground support somehow allows a "standard" fighter to be transferred to the Light fighter catagory?

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Thank you for playing the ball.

It was a waste of time

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Seems the thread should just be renamed "Alternative single-engine WWII fighters for all countries except the US" and there would be no difficulty with definitions.

Maybe it would be better if we started yet another thread about how marvelous the Luftwaffe is?