Most effective planes of the early war years
- Thread starter Glider
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
It wasn't French (thank god) 
marseille jr
Airman
- 52
- Mar 28, 2005
Premier vol: 2/10/1938; Production: 3/12/39; Livraison: 1/02/1940
translated : first flight at 2nd october 1938, production started in december 1939, first deliveries in february 1940. (First drawings were made in 1937 btw.)
On espérait l'équiper d'un moteur de 1300cv..
They hoped to equip it with a 1300HP engine ... but that never happened (910 was all it got)
Il abbatit néanmoins près de 150 avions ennemis pour une perte de 85
It knocked out almost 150 ennemy planes for the loss of 85 of their own (against the much more experienced germans)
seuls 36 étaient en service le 10 mai 1940, un nombre tout à fait insuffisant pour faire face à la toute puissante Luftwaffe
Only 36 were in service on 10 may 1940, absolutely not enough to face the powerful luftwaffe on equal terms.
Dans les opérations militaires et la courte période qui vit la France et l'Allemagne s'affronter dans les airs, le D-520 se révéla supérieur au Messerschmitt Bf 109-E3 pour ce qui est de la manoeuvrabilité, mais inférieur quant à la vitesse maximale
in the short period France and Germany contended in the air, the D520 revealed itself to be superior in terms of manoeuvrability to the BF 109 E-3, but inferior in terms of top speed.
Amen
Attachments
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
I must admit, that the D-520 is a beauty.
But this thread goes for the most effective plane of the erly stage of war and even a record of 150 kills is not that impressive, compared to the Bf-109 or Hurricane. Keep also in mind that almost all single engined fighter planes have a positive loss to kill relation (including the polish P-11 fighter).
But this thread goes for the most effective plane of the erly stage of war and even a record of 150 kills is not that impressive, compared to the Bf-109 or Hurricane. Keep also in mind that almost all single engined fighter planes have a positive loss to kill relation (including the polish P-11 fighter).
The development of the D.520 started in 1936. So in the time that the British developed the Spitfire and the Germans developed the Bf-109 the French could not speed up there progress on the D.520.
I am sorry if I am being biased here I think the D.520 was an underated aircraft as you stated and she did well for the time she was in service but I just dont like French planes.
With the War looming in 1939, you would have thought the French would have ordered more aircraft then they did....
And a bit too late.....
Sorry guys but the French here botched this one up again, they have a habit of it.
I am sorry if I am being biased here I think the D.520 was an underated aircraft as you stated and she did well for the time she was in service but I just dont like French planes.
With the War looming in 1939, you would have thought the French would have ordered more aircraft then they did....
And a bit too late.....
Sorry guys but the French here botched this one up again, they have a habit of it.
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Yea, that and the manufacture of French Surrender Flags...
cheddar cheese
Major General
Stars and Stripes pacifier 
Yeah I thought those were funny.
Chocks away!
Senior Airman
I still think the Dewoitine is in the best of the bunch. Think of the number in service and how many they shot down. They saw some action my friends!
The D.520 was deffinatly underated but as for the early war years I still have to go with the Bf-109E and the Hurricane. In all actually both of these aircraft would send the French flying for safety over a period of time. The D.520 was the solution for the French who took to long to develop the aircraft. It was still a fine aircraft though, dont take me wrong.
marseille jr
Airman
- 52
- Mar 28, 2005
Exactly. Not the best, but among the best. Most pilots only had flown about 5 hours in the aircraft and still managed to hold their own against numeriorically superior germans with months/years of experience in their emils. If the D520 wasn't on par with the Emil, this couldn't have happened unless all french pilots were Marseilles and Nowotnys... which obviously wasn't the case.
But consider this. Against the Emil it had its manoeuvrability and range to make up for the speed and engine rating shortcomings, but against the spitfire ... it definetely lost it's manoeuvrability advantage. I think this might perhaps be a reason why that the spit can be hailed as best dogfighter in the early stage of the war, despite my penchant for the BF 109. What do you guys think of this deduction?
Mmmmm. I read on different french sites development started in january 1937. I'd guess that french sites will be more accurate as it's a french plane.
Yes. Not that a whole lot D520's would have changed the outcome though.
Only 36 were in service on 10 may 1940. You can't expect that pilots who barely knew the plane would rack up 1000's of aerial victories with so few planes.
Attachments
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
marseille jr said:
there is an element of truth in this however do not just go by this, always look for several sources when getting data, are sites in english always right about english planes?? no.........
Well you know every site I hae been to says 1936 development started. Maybe they are wrong, will I ever know, problaby not because I was not on the design team of the aircraft, but I go with the common rule here.
I agree with what you say though about being among the best but not the best.
I agree with what you say though about being among the best but not the best.
marseille jr
Airman
- 52
- Mar 28, 2005
D520 dont la conception avait débuté en 1937
http://henry.chez.tiscali.fr/nn/D520.html
Un projet modifié, désigné D.520 en référence à la vitesse exigée, est soumis en janvier 1937
http://caea.free.fr/fr/coll/d520.html
Both French sites state it was 1937. I regret we will never know the exact truth, but I'm inclined to 1937 here.
In trials on 4/21/40 with a captured Bf 109E3, the Bf109 was 20 mph faster due to the higher power of its engine, but the D.520 had superior maneuverability and handling.
http://members.aol.com/bogdanovaslava/Bulgarian_D520.html
Attachments
What's the point in all this. Everyone has agreed the D.520 was under-rated and that it's 'among the best'. It's hardly an effective plane of the early war years.
The mention of the kill ratio, the FAF got a 26:1 kill:loss ratio with Brewster Buffaloes. Does that make the Buffalo a good plane? I think not.
The French would have been better with Hawk-75s than D.520s. The Bf-109 was the most effective early war fighter. The Hurricane up to Dunkirk didn't have much to say in the matter, it shone through during the Battle of Britain.
And 200 machines per month! My god, that's a disgrace. Britain was throwing out 1000 Spitfires and Hurricanes a WEEK during the height of production in the Battle of Britain.
The mention of the kill ratio, the FAF got a 26:1 kill:loss ratio with Brewster Buffaloes. Does that make the Buffalo a good plane? I think not.
The French would have been better with Hawk-75s than D.520s. The Bf-109 was the most effective early war fighter. The Hurricane up to Dunkirk didn't have much to say in the matter, it shone through during the Battle of Britain.
And 200 machines per month! My god, that's a disgrace. Britain was throwing out 1000 Spitfires and Hurricanes a WEEK during the height of production in the Battle of Britain.
marseille jr
Airman
- 52
- Mar 28, 2005
Mmmm the Emil couldn't really outperform the spit (except with negative G manoeuvers but that was quickly solved) while the spit could easily outturn the BF 109. I don't think the Emil's pair of twin slow firing cannons would completely make up for this. The germans were just lucky to have battle hardened veterens and well proven tactics to account for so many british planes.
Still I have to agree with you to some extent. Personnally I've always considered the spit and the Bf 109 each others equal (until 1943). They were along with the D520 the best planes of 1937-1940 (omitting the first reisen versions).
Attachments
First off, this thread clearly stated "...up to Dunkirk..." the Spitfire did not serve in France, it served to protect the evacuation at Dunkirk only.
Secondly, effective doesn't mean technical ability. The Spitfire had no effect on the Battle of France because it wasn't there! I don't think you understand the term effective.
Effective ~ Adjective;
1. a) Having an intended or expected effect
b) Producing a strong impression or response
Up to Dunkirk the Spitfire did not have the oppurtunity to create a strong impression. The Bf-109, however, did have the oppurtunity and created the largest impression of any fighter in the early war years.
There's no real need for a discussion on the technical ability of either aircraft as the Spitfire Vs. 109 debate has been raging for many a decade.
The Spitfire and Bf-109 were both superior creations to the D.520. The Hawk-75 was better than the D.520 as well, this plane would have put much better service in as it out-performed the Spitfire Mk.I in everything but speed.
Secondly, effective doesn't mean technical ability. The Spitfire had no effect on the Battle of France because it wasn't there! I don't think you understand the term effective.
Effective ~ Adjective;
1. a) Having an intended or expected effect
b) Producing a strong impression or response
Up to Dunkirk the Spitfire did not have the oppurtunity to create a strong impression. The Bf-109, however, did have the oppurtunity and created the largest impression of any fighter in the early war years.
There's no real need for a discussion on the technical ability of either aircraft as the Spitfire Vs. 109 debate has been raging for many a decade.
The Spitfire and Bf-109 were both superior creations to the D.520. The Hawk-75 was better than the D.520 as well, this plane would have put much better service in as it out-performed the Spitfire Mk.I in everything but speed.
I don't understand why some find the stereotype of french soldiers running away funny.
Are you saying that if you were in a war you would stand and fight? 99% of soldiers would literally shit themselves, scream and run away or surrender when there was'nt an officer around to shoot them for desertion.
Oh, and not surpisingly it has been proven that only 1 or 2 % of soldiers shoot to kill in combat, they are too sickened to murder someone.
Are you saying that if you were in a war you would stand and fight? 99% of soldiers would literally shit themselves, scream and run away or surrender when there was'nt an officer around to shoot them for desertion.
Oh, and not surpisingly it has been proven that only 1 or 2 % of soldiers shoot to kill in combat, they are too sickened to murder someone.
99% of soldiers would run away? Do you want to provide evidence to back up that statistic?
By that simple statement you have disgraced every single man in history that has fought on a field of battle, that has seen his friends die, that has been injured in a conflict and that has ultimately paid the ultimate price, his life.
All of those men that ran up those beaches, jumped out of those planes, ran across those fields, flew those bombers, sailed in those ships during World War 2 to secure your freedom of speech, you have insulted. You fuck-ing moron!
Who the fuck do you think you are!? Sure they were scared, who wouldn't be!? Those men were ALL scared but bravery isn't being scared, it's BEING scared and getting off your ass and doing the job anyway! You arsehole!
Now, for everyone else with a bit of sense here's an amusing website.
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html
Enjoy.
Oh yeah, and Smokey, you're an arsehole.
By that simple statement you have disgraced every single man in history that has fought on a field of battle, that has seen his friends die, that has been injured in a conflict and that has ultimately paid the ultimate price, his life.
All of those men that ran up those beaches, jumped out of those planes, ran across those fields, flew those bombers, sailed in those ships during World War 2 to secure your freedom of speech, you have insulted. You fuck-ing moron!
Who the fuck do you think you are!? Sure they were scared, who wouldn't be!? Those men were ALL scared but bravery isn't being scared, it's BEING scared and getting off your ass and doing the job anyway! You arsehole!
Now, for everyone else with a bit of sense here's an amusing website.
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html
Enjoy.
Oh yeah, and Smokey, you're an arsehole.
