Light fighters alternatives, 1935-1945 (3 Viewers)

[Shortround6]

Reminds me more of an M.S. 405 variant.

Now that you mention it..................smeared liberally with Brie cheese.

 

[topspeed]

Yep....................similarly laid out concepts.
Propeller in the front.
Engine right behind.
Rudder and elevator at the rear.
Cockpit somewhere in-between.
Low wing.
Retracting landing gear.
Yep. Similar
View attachment 902325
1920. Fully retracting landing gear interlocked with drooping leading edge and drooping trailing edge/aileron for variable camber.
Fully enclosed cockpit (with zero forward vision, or rearward).
Monocoque fuselage (not the first).
Cantilever wing (not the first)

If I close one eye and squint a lot how many planes can I claim trace back to this one?

Are you saying these both look as far from Mustang as possible ?

 

[SaparotRob]

Now that you mention it..................smeared liberally with Brie cheese.

Smeared liberally with something.

 

[SaparotRob]

Are you saying these both look as far from Mustang as possible ?

View attachment 902331

Other than the radiator intake, it doesn't look like a Mustang.

 

[Shortround6]

Another model.

Quite possible not accurate. It does almost make the Hurricane look svelte.
never seen a good explanation of where the wing guns go, given the leading-edge slats, the landing light, landing gear and the propeller arc.
Many of publish performance figures may be estimates. Prototype never got guns? Hitting max speed at 6000 meters with a 3250 meter engine takes a bit of explaining?
French pixie dust?

 

[topspeed]

Another model.
View attachment 902333
Quite possible not accurate. It does almost make the Hurricane look svelte.
never seen a good explanation of where the wing guns go, given the leading-edge slats, the landing light, landing gear and the propeller arc.
Many of publish performance figures may be estimates. Prototype never got guns? Hitting max speed at 6000 meters with a 3250 meter engine takes a bit of explaining?
French pixie dust?

It clearly shows how much NACA and american aviation and aerodynamic research had advanced..and how good that Hornbach born american aeroplane designer was.

In 1943 Finnish state aeroplane factory VL designed a fighter with similar wing area as CAO 200...but as they had Early DB engines available the top speed was drawn officially to 685 kph albeit one polar was above 700 kph....like Mustang and Messerschmitt 109 G-10.

 

[Elan Vital]

Another model.

Quite possible not accurate. It does almost make the Hurricane look svelte.
never seen a good explanation of where the wing guns go, given the leading-edge slats, the landing light, landing gear and the propeller arc.
Many of publish performance figures may be estimates. Prototype never got guns? Hitting max speed at 6000 meters with a 3250 meter engine takes a bit of explaining?
French pixie dust?

The CAO 200 (LN 60 designation prior to the nationalization of Loire-Nieuport into the SNCAO) was the successor of the LN 161 that had competed against the MS 405, this time meant for the new program from 1937 which led to the Morane-Saulnier MS 450, Arsenal VG 33 and Dewoitine 520. Some of its features are thus reminiscent of the LN 161.

Philippe RICCO (the author of the books on Bloch aircrafts) wrote an article on it and its derivatives in issue n°235 of the magazine Avions, but unfortunately I don't have it and it is out of stock, so I'm limited to 1-page extracts.

Quoting the small article on it by Aviadrix, test pilot Michel Detroyat described it as "as easy to pilot and as maneuverable as the Morane 406, but considerably faster".

Reportedly, the performance actually achieved by the prototype powered by the HS 12Y-31 instead of the intended 12Y-51 were:
- maximum 535 kph without and 552 kph with exhaust thrust, 446 kph at sea level
- climb time of 5' 35" to 4600m, 4'50" to 4000m, 6'15" to 5000m and 7'50" to 6000m

Admittedly, the similarly ungainly LN 161 also was a better climber and faster aircraft than it looks at first glance. Regardless, the CAO 200 was not considered particularly better than the D520 and VG33 which were more mature in development, so only an experimental series of 12 aircrafts was ordered. Derivatives were the single seat naval fighter CAO 1000 and the CAO 500 floatplane.

Other than the extensive use of leading edge slats, the other notable design characteristic was that the monocoque part of the structure (metallic tubes covered in aluminium skin) was welded instead of being riveted.

There are these holes which may indicate the location of the wing guns(1 per wing):

 

[topspeed]

The CAO 200 (LN 60 designation prior to the nationalization of Loire-Nieuport into the SNCAO) was the successor of the LN 161 that had competed against the MS 405, this time meant for the new program from 1937 which led to the Morane-Saulnier MS 450, Arsenal VG 33 and Dewoitine 520. Some of its features are thus reminiscent of the LN 161.

Philippe RICCO (the author of the books on Bloch aircrafts) wrote an article on it and its derivatives in issue n°235 of the magazine Avions, but unfortunately I don't have it and it is out of stock, so I'm limited to 1-page extracts.

Quoting the small article on it by Aviadrix, test pilot Michel Detroyat described it as "as easy to pilot and as maneuverable as the Morane 406, but considerably faster".

Reportedly, the performance actually achieved by the prototype powered by the HS 12Y-31 instead of the intended 12Y-51 were:
- maximum 535 kph without and 552 kph with exhaust thrust, 446 kph at sea level
- climb time of 5' 35" to 4600m, 4'50" to 4000m, 6'15" to 5000m and 7'50" to 6000m

Admittedly, the similarly ungainly LN 161 also was a better climber and faster aircraft than it looks at first glance. Regardless, the CAO 200 was not considered particularly better than the D520 and VG33 which were more mature in development, so only an experimental series of 12 aircrafts was ordered. Derivatives were the single seat naval fighter CAO 1000 and the CAO 500 floatplane.

Other than the extensive use of leading edge slats, the other notable design characteristic was that the monocoque part of the structure (metallic tubes covered in aluminium skin) was welded instead of being riveted.

There are these holes which may indicate the location of the wing guns(1 per wing):

View attachment 902354

Is the wing area really 13.3 m2 ?

 

[topspeed]

Other than the radiator intake, it doesn't look like a Mustang.

How about the positioning of the elevator and the rudder profile ?

 

[SaparotRob]

That is a pretty common design layout to me.
Full disclosure: I am probably the least qualified Forum member on aviation design and history. I just like looking at airplanes.

 

[topspeed]

That is a pretty common design layout to me.
Full disclosure: I am probably the least qualified Forum member on aviation design and history. I just like looking at airplanes.

My comment about the similarities to Soviet fighters is based mainly on this strong taper.

It is swept too like the american made CW-21.

The craft in Paris show 1938 was like this here...no scoop...as it had no engine yet.

Avyone see similarities in general level with the Soviet fast fighters ?

 

[AerialTorpedoDude69]

Look at the Seafire_LFIIIs. These were small, lightweight aircraft, although I doubt they were cheaper than the Corsairs and Hellcats. Among their positive qualities was that more of them could be fit on an aircraft carrier. Due to the limitations of the single speed single stage Merlin engines, they optimized them for low altitude performance. They were formidable fighters up to 9,000ft, and they were pretty well useless above 15,000ft. As far as the Royal Navy was concerned, that was okay. They had Corsairs and Hellcats.

The narrow, fragile landing gear had everything to do with Sea/Spitfires being very early examples of retractable gear, and nothing to do with being lightweight.

Some fine scotch whiskey disappeared out of Royal Navy inventory, some 75GalUS P40 drop tanks disappeared out of USAAF inventory, and then Seafires appeared on escort missions over Japan. There is nothing that says your lightweight fighters cannot use drop tanks.

It's interesting that you would mention drop tanks. The Claude had a variant which could use them. As strike escort aircraft I doubt they could keep up with even loaded Jills or Judys.

The Claude's loiter time would probably be excellent. The equation to calculate loiter time heavily weights things like lift and weight so in theory lightweight aircraft are superior at CAP relative to heavier aircraft.

I do not know of any air-cooled inline engines that were used in naval aircraft but my guess is that air-cooled inline offered the perfect mix of characteristics for a lightweight carrier aircraft.

These pilots are protecting something else. Loosing many dozens of pilots and A/C more while saving thousands of lives and dozens of ships seems like a very good (if a cold) trade. KM Bismarck was sunk with 2200 men loosing their lives.

The Japanese pilot replacement program did not produce enough adequately trained pilots to counteract attrition. While Japanese industry managed to dramatically increase output, the same could not be said for its pilot training. Its pilot training, particularly the naval program, seemed to be more focused on washing students out.

As such, each pilot loss was more dire than other nations losing pilots, because those pilots were not being replaced fast enough.

That said, you are right that carriers were the critical resource, and protecting them was of the utmost concern in 1942. If the Japanese had retained their carrier body and its strike force, they could have had free range over the Pacific throughout 1942 and part of 1943. The planned invasion of Australia may have happened and the war could have been lengthened even further as the US wouldn't have been able to increase troop commitments to Nazi Germany until Japan had been put onto the defensive.

It is frightening to think of how a single battle could have had such far-reaching impact.

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.

I remember reading that the floatplanes oftentimes provided the Japanese with early detection of enemy aircraft or fleet positions. It sounds like they were less successful than I read and that's why each carrier force had its own specialist recon aircraft.

But this would mean that dedicated CAP would take away from the critical scout forces that the Japanese were dependent upon because of their weak radar/early detection systems?

 

[Howard Gibson]

It's interesting that you would mention drop tanks. The Claude had a variant which could use them. As strike escort aircraft I doubt they could keep up with even loaded Jills or Judys.

The Claude's loiter time would probably be excellent. The equation to calculate loiter time heavily weights things like lift and weight so in theory lightweight aircraft are superior at CAP relative to heavier aircraft.

Would the A5M be capable of catching the fighters that were attacking your bombers? Would its pair of 7.7mm machine guns stop a Hellcat from doing whatever it is Hellcats do? The Seafire LFIIIs were fast at low altitude, and they were armed with a pair of 20mm cannons.

It is not good enough to just keep up with the bombers.

 

[GrauGeist]

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.

Swede may not have actually downed his claims, but he survived the attack and preoccupied the Zeros who could have otherwise gone on to down other aircraft. Vejtasa's action was actually during the Battle of Coral Sea and he was deployed as auxiliary CAP and, it was three claims, btw.

Also at the Battle of Coral Sea, Lt. Lefla and his Gunner R3C Liska accumulated 7 enemy aircraft downed, five of which were in a single engagement. The other victories were on day two of the battle, where Lefla's SBD was deployed as auxiliary CAP.