March until October of 1940: fighters' ranking

[The Basket]

My view is that the P-26 was not as radical as it could have been deliberately. Because it would have been a harder sell.

The P-26 design features were certainly in later fighters.

If you look at the Gauntlet and Gladiator which came later then it is no stretch to say the P-26 was a more forward design.

I compared the A5M in design which certainly matched the P-26. Of course being newer and a front line fighter for longer it had the more modern design features. Had the P-26 being modernised then it also would have had various upgrade.

 

[Shortround6]

This was all during the Depression. Note the two planes with turbo chargers.

Getting the right balance between strength, weight and drag was not easy.
Getting enclosed cockpits with good vision wasn't always easy. Getting panels without distortion or that were strong enough or weren't too heavy (or didn't break when very cold) wasn't as easy as it seems from 80-90 years in future.

 

[SaparotRob]

First time I've ever seen some of those planes.

 

[Admiral Beez]

In the recent P-40 thread, the discussion about the merits of Bf 109, Spitfire, Hurricane, P-40 etc. was initiated. So I'd start the thread dedicated to this small yet very important time frame, about the best fighters in it. 2-engined fighters also qualify, so do the fighters from the whole world.

I've always liked the look of the Arsenal VG-33. 347 mph with a 20mm cannon and four mgs, with a good canopy for situational awareness. What's not to like? Too bad only a few dozen were produced by the time France fell in May 1940. By October 1940 I imagine an improved version would be in service, including a Merlin variant, but I'll put forward the VG-33 as it was for this thread.

 

[John Vasco]

I think this is the only mention in this thread, arguably making it overlooked.

Yes I know, it couldn't dog fight, in the opinion of many making it a dog. But used offensively it often did well up to the battle of Britain, and not too badly when booming and zooming. If its devastating armament didn't decide the issue in the first pass, it should be speedy enough to escape everything but a spitfire, and even then it would not be easy to catch if enjoying the initial speed advantage. Tie it to close escort and all its advantages are negated.

That does not mean I'd rate it third behind the spitfire and the 109, I always have trouble deciding; what do we want a fighter to do? It is a very good bomber destroyer and enjoyed some succes in tip and run attacks. For Europe at the time the range was good, and the second crew member can do useful things.

I'm certainly not claiming it could have won bob if only it was properly used, but I think it belongs well above the bottom of the lists. Possibly some others of the twins too, but I'm far from certain which ones are actually qualifying by october.

This may be of (surprising) interest, given that overclaiming on both sides was pretty even...

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Clearly Spitfire. No question
The best fighter of the entire war.

That really depends on what you're asking it to do and where. Escorting bombers over Berlin? Not so much.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

The P-26 design features were certainly in later fighters.

The idea of a monoplane fighter wasn't revolutionary in 1932, and certainly didn't start with the P-26, as the Fokker E.III and D.VIII were around long before.
The P-26 is a classic design, and certainly an attractive one, but by the time frame of this thread, it had been surpassed a few times over.
Revolutionary in the early 30's would be retractable gear, cantilever monoplane with an enclosed cockpit. like an I-16

 

[Clayton Magnet]

That really depends on what you're asking it to do and where. Escorting bombers over Berlin? Not so much.

Nobody was escorting bombers over Berlin in 1940, and Bomber Command was in the process of learning the hard way that daylight raids over Germany were disastrous.
The A6M may have had the range at that point, but it would have met Bf 109E-4 and F-1's neatly arranged at altitude above them, with expert Luftwaffe pilots not willing to dogfight. It would have been a mess for the Zero.

 

[Admiral Beez]

That really depends on what you're asking it to do and where. Escorting bombers over Berlin? Not so much.

RAF Bomber Command had no need for that. Though one could argue they didn't need an escort fighter because their bombers flew at night because they didn't have an escort fighter to allow their bombers to fly during the daylight. So, chicken and egg.

But for the purposes of this thread, no one except the Japanese had a single engined fighter in October 1940 capable of flying from Britain to Berlin and back. As for later in the war, a long range Spitfire was possible, long range Spitfire | Forums

 

[The Basket]

You don't have to be the fastest when chased by the tiger. Just not the slowest.

I would argue the A5M was too late as its main western rivals the Hurricane and 109 had similar time frames.

One aspect of the P-26 was it's metal construction and monoplane design and as far as I can tell it was the fastest fighter in American service when it entered service.

So again....the P-26 was a decent modem fighter for its day when it first entered service. So it's design can be considered successful. It held a reasonable performance when considered against its contemporaries.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Nobody was escorting bombers over Berlin in 1940, and Bomber Command was in the process of learning the hard way that daylight raids over Germany were disastrous.
The A6M may have had the range at that point, but it would have met Bf 109E-4 and F-1's neatly arranged at altitude above them, with expert Luftwaffe pilots not willing to dogfight. It would have been a mess for the Zero.

The poster upthread wrote that the Spitfire was the best plane of the entire war, so asking about escorting raids over Berlin certainly falls in the purview of this sidebar. But to humor your point: were people launching fighters from carriers in 1940? Was the Spitfire best for that use?

And -- those Zeros would certainly have the range title. Asserting that the Germans would have fought them in any particular way is a claim that really needs support lest it be discarded as a bald assertion.

RAF Bomber Command had no need for that. Though one could argue they didn't need an escort fighter because their bombers flew at night because they didn't have an escort fighter to allow their bombers to fly during the daylight. So, chicken and egg.

But for the purposes of this thread, no one except the Japanese had a single engined fighter in October 1940 capable of flying from Britain to Berlin and back. As for later in the war, a long range Spitfire was possible, long range Spitfire | Forums

None of that obviates my point that "best" relies upon what you're trying to do with the plane.

 

[dedalos]

That really depends on what you're asking it to do and where. Escorting bombers over Berlin? Not so much.

I was sure p51 fans would react ...
By the time the P51b appeared then outcome of the war had been decided.
The luftwaffe had been already defeated.
And yes , if it was nessecary , the spitfire could be modified for the long range role

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I was sure p51 fans would react ...
By the time the P51b appeared then outcome of the war had been decided.
The luftwaffe had been already defeated.
And yes , if it was nessecary , the spitfire could be modified for the long range role

Uh, where did you get the idea that I'm a P-51 fan? I take as objective a view of things as I can, but if I'm a fan of any American fighter, it's the P-47. Feel better now?

Making baseless assumptions about someone you don't know is generally regarded as rude; as is leading one's reply with an ad homeneim rather than just addressing the point being raised.

And you don't know what any long-range mods might do to the Spitfire's efficacy as a fighter. Generally speaking, adding weight such as fuel and fuel tanks tends to impair performance, others things being equal.

Nothing in your reply answers my point that what you're asking the plane to do has everything to do with rating its capabilities.

I do confess amusement at someone making your claim (about the Spit being the best of the entire war) also calling anyone else a "fan". Physician, heal thyself.

 

[The Basket]

Let's say USA goes to war 1933 34 35 with whoever....RAF IJN IJA Frenches, Italy, Germany, Soviets, Salvation Army....whoever.

Against the rank and file fighters or the main bulk of fighters then the P-26 is in ok shape.

Is the P-26 in bad shape against say the He 51…not really. Bristol Bulldog? Some low cards in that deck.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The poster upthread wrote that the Spitfire was the best plane of the entire war, so asking about escorting raids over Berlin certainly falls in the purview of this sidebar. But to humor your point: were people launching fighters from carriers in 1940? Was the Spitfire best for that use?

And -- those Zeros would certainly have the range title. Asserting that the Germans would have fought them in any particular way is a claim that really needs support lest it be discarded as a bald assertion.



None of that obviates my point that "best" relies upon what you're trying to do with the plane.

@AdmiralBeez, what is your intention when you label a post "creative"? That's a very vague adjective.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I was sure p51 fans would react ...
By the time the P51b appeared then outcome of the war had been decided.
The luftwaffe had been already defeated.
And yes , if it was nessecary , the spitfire could be modified for the long range role

Well I'm not a P-51 fanboy, really don't have a dog in this fight, but I think it's really ridiculous to say "the war was decided" in early 1944 and the Luftwaffe was defeated. Look at where they stood at this period of time and Germany as a whole, although losing was far from being defeated!!!!

And tell us, how is the Spitfire going to be modified to a long range role. Don't you think if that was possible or worth doing it would have been done and then no need for the Mustang at all?!?!?

A Spitfire PR Mk XIX with an external auxiliary tank had a top range of about 1400 miles and it didn't go into service until mid 1944, probably had the longest range for any Spitfire marks (someone correct me if I'm wrong) and it was a reconnaissance aircraft. The P-51 was operational 6 month earlier.

SMH

 

[Admiral Beez]

I would argue the A5M was too late as its main western rivals the Hurricane and 109 had similar time frames.

It's noteworthy the generational leap from the open cockpit, fixed undercarriage A5M to the A6M. Not as big as Hawker Hart/Nimrod to Hurricane, but impressive, akin to Supermarine Type 224 to Spitfire.

 

[MikeMeech]

My view is that the P-26 was not as radical as it could have been deliberately. Because it would have been a harder sell.

The P-26 design features were certainly in later fighters.

If you look at the Gauntlet and Gladiator which came later then it is no stretch to say the P-26 was a more forward design.

I compared the A5M in design which certainly matched the P-26. Of course being newer and a front line fighter for longer it had the more modern design features. Had the P-26 being modernised then it also would have had various upgrade.

Hi
The P-26 (began to enter service in June 1934) has interesting aspects but it did not have much of a performance advantage over aircraft like the Gauntlet (began to enter service in May 1935) , the former had a maximum speed 5 mph above the latter (235 to 230 mph), it also had a slightly greater rate of climb than the Gauntlet 2,360 ft/min to 2,300 ft/min. The P-26 had a service ceiling of 27,400 ft compared with the Gauntlet's 33,500 ft ( the earlier Bulldog had a service ceiling of 29,300 ft, 'high' ceilings being a RAF requirement). The Gladiator (began to enter service February 1937) of course had a max speed of 253 mph. The Hurricane entered service from December 1937, replacing Gauntlets in No. 111 Sqn and in March 1938 Gladiators in No. 3 Sqn.

Mike

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Asserting that the Germans would have fought them in any particular way is a claim that really needs support lest it be discarded as a bald assertion.

It was something of an assertion, but not one without historical evidence. The Luftwaffe had forged their fighter tactics over Spain, and perfected them over France and the low countries. Against I-15's in Spain, P-11's in Poland and MS-406's in France, the Bf 109 had a top speed and climb advantage, and their tactics exploited it. By October 1940, the jagdwaffe was the finest fighter force in the world, with the most experienced pilots and a qualitative advantage in equipment.
It isn't a stretch to assume that in some alternate universe, if faced with long range A6M's in German airspace, that the 109's would engage them the same way they had every other opponent, with hit and run attacks from higher altitude.

 

[The Basket]

Which is best Spitfire v 109?

Depends.

So the question is the depend bit.

Ferrari v Kia Picanto. The Kia is better for parking and weekly grocery shopping. Cheaper too.

The Kia Picanto is also better than a Spitfire for going to the shops. So what am I talking about again?

Which fighter would be best for Kamikaze missions? The P-47 would be very good for that.