Light fighters alternatives, 1935-1945 (8 Viewers)

[tomo pauk]

I see 7 distinct similarieties with a P-51A.

"Distinct similarities" do not equate to a"predecessor".

 

[special ed]

Just a quick look, I see five dissimilar features:
Non retractable tail skid
Auxiliary vertical fins
Landing gear too long
very poor rear view windows
and
the engine turns the wrong way - optional of course.

 

[topspeed]

"Distinct similarities" do not equate to a"predecessor".

Well does it look like an i-16 to you ?

 

[topspeed]

Just a quick look, I see five dissimilar features:
Non retractable tail skid
Auxiliary vertical fins
Landing gear too long
very poor rear view windows
and
the engine turns the wrong way - optional of course.

P-51A had no rear view.

What are those auxliary vertical fins for in your opinion ?

 

[special ed]

It has wings, an engine and a tail - Similar to the Wright Bros product.

 

[topspeed]

It has wings, an engine and a tail - Similar to the Wright Bros product.

Are you kidding me ?

This was very pretty aircraft:

SNCAO 200 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[special ed]

Maybe pretty to the French...
The aux fins were most likely for a float plane fighter, which is what the original design was.

 

[Howard Gibson]

Italians lost 3 cruisers and 2 destroyers because the Italian air force would not talk to/cooperate with the Italian navy. Having to build 20,000 ton plus carriers because your armed forces won't cooperate with each other is a real problem. I do mean real, at times the US Navy and US Army were not cooperating well either.

The carrier based Fairey Fulmar was a fairly successful fighter because when the Italian Airforce did cooperate, they used open-cockpit, fixed landing gear biplanes. The Fulmar was a Bad Idea, but the Italians lacked the performance to take advantage of it.

 

[tomo pauk]

Well does it look like an i-16 to you ?

Looks do not determine whether one design is a predecessor of another.

 

[topspeed]

Maybe pretty to the French...
The aux fins were most likely for a float plane fighter, which is what the original design was.

May I see the link to the float version ?

• • 
    Manufacturer: SNCAO (formed from the nationalization and merger of Loire-Nieuport and Breguet) [1]
  • First Flight: January 31, 1939 [1]
  • Role: Experimental/prototype single-seat fighter designed to compete against the Dewoitine D.520 [1, 2]
  • Production: Only one prototype was ever built. [1]
  • Engine: Initially fitted with an 860 hp Hispano-Suiza 12Y-31 liquid-cooled V-12 engine instead of the planned, more powerful 1,100 hp Hispano-Suiza 12Y-51, which left the aircraft underpowered. [1, 2, 3]
  • Armament (Planned/Fitted): One 20mm Hispano-Suiza HS.404 cannon and two 7.5mm MAC 1934 machine guns. [1]
  • Design & Modifications: Based on the Loire-Nieuport 161, it featured a welded steel-tube structure covered with Duralumin and leading-edge slots. After stability issues emerged during testing, it was fitted with a triple rudder to improve handling. [1, 2, 3]
  • Operational History: During the Battle of France in May–June 1940, the single prototype was reportedly armed and used in local defense around Villacoublay (with unconfirmed claims of an aerial victory over a German Heinkel He 111). Following the June 1940 Armistice, the aircraft was taken or evaluated by Germany. [1, 2, 3, 4]

1 kill recorded over Heinkel 111

Airfoil and Wing Characteristics

• • Wing Type: Low-wing cantilever monoplane of all-metal construction with stressed-skin wings. [1, 2]
  • Wing Area: 13.30 m² [1]
  • Wingspan: 9.50 m [1]
  • Airfoil Section: Specific proprietary or standard 1930s European thin/medium-cambered sections typical of Loire-Nieuport designs of the era (closely related to the Loire-Nieuport 161 lineage, which featured traditional high-speed sub-sonic sections common prior to standardized widespread NACA profile publication in French state prototypes).
  • Control Surfaces: Initially suffered from directional instability, leading to modifications that added a distinctive triple rudder arrangement

 

[topspeed]

Looks do not determine whether one design is a predecessor of another.

Well it predates the Mustang does it not ?

 

[tomo pauk]

Well it predates the Mustang does it not ?

Is English language your 1st language?
Have you actually read the AI reply in the post #200 here?

 

[topspeed]

Is English language your 1st language?
Have you actually read the AI reply in the post #200 here?

AI is always wrong...in many things.

 

[z42]

AI is always wrong...in many things.

So.. Why did you post it then if you think it's all wrong? Or you didn't even bother to read it yourself? Presumably it's not the job of the rest of the forum to fact check whatever you made AI spit out?

 

[AerialTorpedoDude69]

Trouble is that we keep ignoring the limited capacity of the existing carriers or we come up with scenarios were swapping 6-12 planes will make a difference. We ignore what problems having 6-12 planes less of another type in the same battle/campaign might do.

The US and British tried to use multi role aircraft.
The Dauntless was an SBD. Scout/Bomber/Douglas
The Devastator was an TBD. Torpedo/Bomber/Douglas.
Bomber in this case meant level bomber.

Using yesterday's fighters in Pacific in 1942 would have meant fewer strike aircraft and/or fewer scout aircraft trying to find the enemy. Maybe it would work and maybe it wouldn't.

Japanese tried to cheat. Used floatplanes off their cruisers to raise scout/recon numbers. This did not work as hoped at times. Floatplanes tended to try to radio their own ship or cruiser squadron rather than the carrier group. Making procedures up as you go tends to screw up communications.

Hosho was originally rated for 15 planes. Her early fighters were small (wingspan around 30ft) and used small engines. Maybe the Japanese changed her aviation fuel tanks and maybe they didn't. Early carriers were not built for keeping even 1-2 airplanes aloft during daylight for 5-7days. Fuel storage was often not up to the needs of either modern aircraft or modern operations.

Great comment as always. So I don't know about its avgas or munitions storage capacity, but you'd have to assume a ship of its size would be able to accommodate 15 fighter aircraft. If no bombers, then no bombs. So probably more fuel storage too. But avgas/munitions weren't listed as the main issue with the ship.

Hosho couldn't keep up with Kido Butai. Fairly slow. According to Wikipedia, during Midway it was basically following the main battle group around, alongside other older ships like the Ise and Hyuga. It was 300 miles away from Midway because the strike force had gone ahead. Otherwise, it would have provided scouting and CAP for the strike force. As the Type 96 (IIRC) bomber was significantly larger than the claude, dumping the obsolete biplane would have led to a larger force of Claudes. But it's clear that Midway involved the IJN's leadership making very steep gambles that didn't pay off.

Another issue is that the Claude did not have folding wings or folding wingtips. So switching to an all Claude CAP group doesn't dramatically increase the total number of aircraft available to a small ship (also as Z z42 said, it might be nonlinear). But even so, this thought exercise is about the feasibility of light aircraft. So folding tips + all light fighter contingent could increase capacity by anywhere from a small to a major amount. If a worthless carrier like Hosho could increase a cap by 30 fighters, that alone could have made the difference at Midway, Santa Cruz and other battles where many bombers hit ships without dealing with CAP.

Of course, this argument goes the other way as well: If you design your carrier for the generation aircraft then under development, what happens a few years down the line when the next generation aircraft shows up? If you designed your carrier to fit three aircraft side by side, and the next generation aircraft is a bit wider you can only fit two of them side by side and you lose a third of your capacity. A serious problem in the interwar years when aircraft developed very quickly.

This thought exercise is more about using obsolete carriers and light aircraft to augment CAP from 1941-1943. If the light fighter had any utility it would have been in carrier operations because all its weaknesses are less important. I know the Wildcat was useful as a reserve fighter but I don't think the US even needed the concept because it could replace very expensive aircraft because of its massive industrial base.

The Japanese absolutely needed to ration strategic materials. Reusing older aircraft combined with older ships/conversions for defense would have been more useful for protecting their carriers.

The Dauntless was known to defend itself once committed to a dive and an A5M or an A6M would not have deterred them.

At the Battle of Coral Sea, Lefla even skidded his SBD to shoot down an A6M that was attacking the Dauntless ahead of him during a dive.

Some dive bombers who claimed to shoot down fighters, such as Swede Vejtasa's shooting down Zeros during Santa Cruz, were not backed by Japanese loss records. This is probably because a dive bombing run is probably the second most terrifying experience in aerial combat (torpedo bombing runs are probably worse) and flak probably makes it seem as though an aircraft was damaged when it was not.

But there's a reason why undefended carriers tend to get hit more often compared to carriers that had lost their CAP. Even a single 7.7mm machine gun can throw off a bombing run.