Lightweight fighters

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

Specifications:
Ambrosini S.A.I. 403 italian fighter
Dimensions:
Wing span: 9,80m
Length: 8,20m
Height: 2,90m
Weights:
Empty: 1.983kg
Maximum Take-Off: 2.640kg
Performance:
Maximum Speed: 650km/h
Service Ceiling: 10.000m
Normal Range: 937km
Powerplant:
One 750PS Isotta-Fraschini R.C.21/60 V-Engine
Armament:
four 12,7mm Breda-SAFAT MG or each two
12,7mm Breda-SAFAT MG and 20mm MG151/20 cannon[/quote] These are quite impressive condidering it's a wee little plane!
 
Sure were! If ever you needed proof that Italians did have common sense, that plane is it. They couldnt build powerful enough engines so they combat it by reducing the weight.

And when it comes to underpowered engines the less said about the Breda Ba-88 the better
 
It's probably better than a Macchi 202! How come the Germans didn't consider producing it? They did with the Fiat G 55 and they didn't because of the working hours necessary! With this plane that wouldn't be thew case. A big ''what if''.
 
Most countries didnt need them because their engines were powerful enough to power their planes. Another reason could be that most nations couldnt eek out high top speeds from them. The Dardo was also built using non-strategic materials, like a certain successful British plane
 
the lancaster kicks ass said:
ok if lightweight fighters would have been so good why didn't airforces use them??
Click to expand...

Because the mentality at the time was "bigger is better." On this side of the pond the only operational light weight fighter was the CW-21B Demon which was basically an American Zero (no pun intended) and it got mauled over Indonesia when the Dutch AF operated it. Some of the draw backs of most lightweight fighters designed during WW2 is something was always scrimped on; performance, armament, equipment, etc.

It wasn't until the late 60s and early 70s when the concept of a lightweight fighter was recognized, especially if arming a third-world country and it was then that designers started thinking in a full circle when designing lightweight fighters.
 
the lancaster kicks ass said:
exactly, lightweight fighters are always flawed, and bigger stronger fighters are always favoured.......
Click to expand...

Not all the time Lanc, look at the F-16, hardly flawed, but If I could have an F-15 I'd take that! In actuality, the F-5 is an excellent light weight fighter. Fast maneuverable, simple to maintain and cheap to operate, it'll give any larger combat aircraft a run for its money.

The best ones I've seen were the CF-5s (Canadian). They had F-18 avionics suites which made them even "sweeter."
 
Nonskimmer said:
And of course, we got rid of them.
Click to expand...

You know, I did a mod program on 10 of them - of all places, BOTSWANA! I spent a month there modifying the first 2 and training the BDF on how to do the rest.
 
so CC, what happens when you weight the plane down with ammo, if those tests were'nt done with ammo, and how much ammo could she carry?? you aint gonna get much in a plane of that size, and she aint gonna take much damage either......
 
Nonskimmer said:
We seem to have a history of making a piece of gear finally just right...and then selling it off.
Click to expand...

Yep, that sucks! Should of held on to them, they still could drop bombs real well! 8)

the lancaster kicks ass said:
so CC, what happens when you weight the plane down with ammo, if those tests were'nt done with ammo, and how much ammo could she carry?? you aint gonna get much in a plane of that size, and she aint gonna take much damage either......
Click to expand...

Good point, the downfall of the lightweight fighter - there is only room for so much "stuff." You have to put 10 pounds of sh*t into a 5 pound bag
 
Those tests were done with ammo - though im not sure how much. And the flip side of not being able to take much damage is that its smaller and nimbler, making it harder to hit in the first place. Youre right though, being Italian and lightweight, it probably would have shredded to pieces when it was hit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Aerodynamics of Japanese fighters
2 3
Replies
47
Views
4K
Holtzauge
S
Italian series 5/6 fighters really better?
Replies
8
Views
1K
GregP
T
Average sorties/kill for German night fighters
Replies
16
Views
2K
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
S
Small wings/high wing loading of German fighters
2 3 4
Replies
66
Views
7K
Shortround6
S
The poor performance of the 343 Kokutai against USAAF fighters
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
6K
GrauGeist
Menu
Log in
Register