Question on M.S.406
- Thread starter rousseau
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
Very nice.
Hello Guys !
As you are talking about MS406 Propeller.
One of my friend is asking me a question and I can't reply with assurance on this.
Lets say we found an Ms406 Hsipano Suiza engine somewhere in France and with this engine comes a propeller I can't identify seriously because it is written "Hamilton".
Can anybody confirm me if Ms 406 were fitted with Hamilton copy of any french propeller ??? I am absolutely lost on this.
thanks guys
As you are talking about MS406 Propeller.
One of my friend is asking me a question and I can't reply with assurance on this.
Lets say we found an Ms406 Hsipano Suiza engine somewhere in France and with this engine comes a propeller I can't identify seriously because it is written "Hamilton".
Can anybody confirm me if Ms 406 were fitted with Hamilton copy of any french propeller ??? I am absolutely lost on this.
thanks guys
As memo serves the plane could be equipped with three types of a propeller. Chauviere 351M of 3 m in diameter, Hispano-Suiza 270 and Ratier 1607, both of 3,1 m in diameter. The Hispano-Suiza made propellers on Hamilton licence. So it would be possible the one you found , was of a Hamilton Standard Hydromatic, especially , these props were available since 1937r. Of course we are talking about these three-blade props.
Not a bad aircraft, by the time the war ended the Swiss had developed them into a 680km/h 422mph 1500hp fuel injected machine that was as fast as any Merlin Spitifre.
Apart from inadquet airframe production the French did lag somewhat in engine output leaving their fighters a few hundred hp down on the Me 109. They had improved engines on the Bench some very competitive eg the HS-12Z and the HS-12Y had plently of room to move in it.
Apart from inadquet airframe production the French did lag somewhat in engine output leaving their fighters a few hundred hp down on the Me 109. They had improved engines on the Bench some very competitive eg the HS-12Z and the HS-12Y had plently of room to move in it.
Now the first flight of the one and only D.3803 proto was May 47, not exactly during the WW2. And according to Peter Gunti's article in AE 47, its max speed was 664km/h. Anyway both Saurer engines (YS-2 used in D-3802 and YS-3 used in D-3803) fell critically short in terms of reliability and performance. But even with its problems D-3802 and D-3802A had fairly good performance, they were based on MS 450 prototype, which first flew in 1939 in France. The first proto of D-3802 first flew on 29 Sept 44, production of 3802/3802A incl 3 protos and 10 pre-series planes, max speed 625km/h (390mph), climb 14.2m/s (46.5ft/sec) range 1200km (650nm). They were powered by Saurer YS-2 engines, V-12 engine which produced 1245hp and could be forced to an output of 1400hp for a limited duration.
Juha
Juha
Last edited:
I might agree with Hurricane, but D-3802 was somewhat different looking animal than MS 406, British might well have got more out of Hurri if it had been the only plane to develop, but Hawker had Typhoon/Tempest line and RAF had also Spit, so there was no need to put much effort on Hurri. But clearly 3802/3803 and the Finnish Mörkö-Morane showed that 406 had still some development potential left. Mörkö still had the very nice handling qualities of 406 but was still slow, in reality max speed varied between 490 - 510km/h, depending on which plane was flown. So not much for mid 44 plane.
P-40Q might well have been a better plane than D-3802A
Juha
P-40Q might well have been a better plane than D-3802A
Juha
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
based rather loosely. They used 4 valve heads like the Hispano Z series engines and were about 100lbs heavier (1510lbs for the -2) than a Spanish Z and 140lbs heavier than a post war French Z .
Neither Hurricane nor P-40 received any substantial modification after 1941, while their basic engines were standing the test of time in exemplary fashion.
All three of these were 2-pitch, manually controlled props?
Were the French a little ahead of the British in getting 3-blade, 2-pitch props into service? I think the Brits still had some 2-blade fixed props in service during the May-June 1940 campaign.
What about the timing of the the Germans deploying advanced props, especially on the 109?
Simply not true compared to its contemporaries in the May-June campaign. It was facing Bf109E-3s and -4s, which had two MG-17s in the nose (synchronized) and two MG-FFs in the wings. Importantly, these were not MG-FF/Ms, so no Minengeschoss. That makes a huge difference in destructiveness. The H.S.404 (and even the HS-9 in the early production M.S.406s) had a much higher rate of fire and muzzle velocity than the MG-FF, which meant that it hit much harder. The French 20mm cannons and the MG-FF were all drum-fed with 60 rounds (often reduced to 55 rounds in service). The MG-FFs had more total firing time, but that was because of their low rate of fire, so it's not an advantage. Of course, the MG-FFs were also slightly less efficient because they were in the wings and had to have their harmonization set, while the H.S.404 and HS-9 were firing through the propeller hub, the optimal location. The only advantage that the 109 had was with the machine guns, because the MG-17s were belt-fed, while the MAC-34s were hobbled by being drum-fed. This made no difference in firepower per second, but did mean that the MG-17s had vastly longer combat endurance. We know from experience that a pair of rifle-caliber MGs is ineffective as the armament of a WWII fighter, but they could be used for sighting in the MG-FFs and they were actually somewhat effective against the M.S.406 because it lacked pilot armor and effective fuel protection. Against other fighters and bombers, the MG-17s were much less effective.
The Williams-Gustin formula for the Spitfire and Hurricane gives effectively the same gunpower as for the MS406, although they have longer firing times available. However, the lack of harmonization during the May-June campaign would significantly reduce their effectiveness. Again, if they were firing at an MS406 the .303 bullets would be more effective because of the lack of seat-back armor. Of course, they'd actually be firing at Bf109s, so that's not a real issue.
The D.520 was only available in limited numbers during the campaign, and its firepower only varied by the addition of two more wing-mounted MAC-34s, which was a trivial increase in gun power. Duration for the MAC-34s was significantly increased by changing to the new belt-fed version (675 rpg vs. 300) and with four guns (albeit wing-mounted), it actually had a vague chance of shooting down a German fighter, or even a bomber with very careful shooting (deflection shooting would be best, but I'm not sure French pilots trained for it much--doctrine seems to have been the low overtake would force shots from 6 o'clock).
The Bloch 150-155 were much more heavily armed with their pair of HS-404, although they were in the wings and limited by ammo drums. With the full four belt-fed MAC-34s, the Bloch had decent combat endurance with the rifle-caliber MGs, and the same MG-only gun power as the D.520. The Blochs were exceptionally heavily-armed for the period. While their performance wasn't up to snuff, they were very well-suited for knocking down bombers.
To sum up, the M.S.406 had essentially the same hitting power as its contemporaries. The exception of the Bloch 15x was an outlier among all of the single-engined fighters; we're ignoring the twin-engined fighters because all of the single-seat fighters would compare in the same way and the twins have their own set of advantages and disadvantages.
yulzari
Staff Sergeant
There were also Blenheims, Gladiators and Swordfish involved with Swordfish sinking a French destroyer in Syria.
In Madagascar there were MS406 opposing Martlets in 1941
In Madagascar there were MS406 opposing Martlets in 1941
Shortround6
Major General
There seems to be some dispute about this, The HS 9 may have had a cycle rate of around 400rpm, (360-420rpm?) which is slower than an MG/FF.
Which does make a bit of sense as the HS 9 is a licenced Oerlikon FFS cannon (modified from the HS 7) . Part of this depends on when the licence was taken out and what stage the basic gun was at at the time.
Oerlikon was selling (licencing) three guns during the 20s, the FF using a 72mm long case, the FFL using a 100mm long case and the RRS using the 110mm long case. Not all licensees kept the exact case dimensions of the parent cannon but the longer cartridges need a longer bolt travel and will usually fire slower at a given stage of development, Unfortuanly for the french this means that most people were using these cannon several years after they were.
Marc Birkigt was not happy with the HS 9 and designed his own cannon. Here things get a bit more uncertain as an early specification for the HS 404 shows a cycle rate of 400rpm and a MV of 830 meters a second, however this is several years before the gun goes into service. The British gun (which was the MK II) cycled at around 600rpm and had a velocity of 878m/s
What version the French were using (or when they changed over) is certainly subject to question and not helped by the fact Mr Williams book says 700rpm for the French gun. Misprint or?????
The French HS 404 guns had a rate of fire of 700 rpm. During tests in 1939 it was shown that reliability and life of the gun was greatly improved if it was toned down to 600 rpm - and the lower rate of fire was specified for later versions of the gun (which turned out to be just the British variety).
Shortround6
Major General
Hmmmm, gun stops working 1/2 way through 60 round drum? that sure sounds like an improvement in firepower over the german MG/FF
Given the troubles that many guns had meeting their specified number for the first few years of the war (and the American .50 was among the leaders in troubles in the first few years despite it's later reputation) some of these advertising brochure rates of fire need a bit of salt to go with them.
Contemporary sources I've seen show 570 and 700 rpm. Not sure if this was defensive guns vs. fixed, or just original max vs. limiting for reliability and barrel life. 700 rpm is a real number, however.
The first 1/3 of the M.S.406 production run mounted the HS-9. Because the HS-404 essentially dropped in I'm place of the HS-9, the 406s were actively upgraded with the HS-404, which seems to have been one of few pieces of equipment that ran ahead of airframe production. This was also one of the few upgrades to the M.S.406 that could be accomplished with minimal fuss.
By the May-June campaign, the HS-9 wasn't a significant factor.
