Similar Aircraft of WWII

[Acheron]

An unusual question, I would like to ask which WW2 aircraft were similar to each other, especially if they were made by different countries or at least different manufacturers, with differences practically negligible.

I would like to provide an example, but am hesitant to do so, I was about to suggest Macchi C 202 might be an Italian Me 109, but a quick check at wikipedia suggests that the two aircraft were more different than I at first thought.

EDIT: What I am looking for are aircraft that turned out to be remarkably similar in their performance statistics, despite being made by different designers and maybe even in different countries. In other words, if two of these aircraft met in combat, it wouldn't be much different if two of the same faced off against each other.

 

[SaparotRob]

If we're going with similar, the Ki-61 "Tony" was first identified as a Japanese Messershmidt then a C202. I guess that's similar enough.

 

[Acheron]

I should have been more precise: I am looking for aircraft, that turned out to be remarkably similar in their performance. Regarding the Ki-61 and the C.202, the later seems superior by a decent margin, slightly faster, better range and considerably more power/mass?

 

[Kevin J]

How about the Re 2000 and the XP-41.

 

[fastmongrel]

Spitfire and 109 pretty much matched each other from 1936 to 1945.

 

[pbehn]

With convergent evolution in engineering things designed to the same rules with the same desired outcomes tend to look the same. The Hawker Sea Fury and Grumman Bearcat came from completely different routes but looked and performed pretty much the same.

 

[fastmongrel]

With convergent evolution in engineering things designed to the same rules with the same desired outcomes tend to look the same. The Hawker Sea Fury and Grumman Bearcat came from completely different routes but looked and performed pretty much the same.

As can be seen with modern cars. Cover up the front and rear badges and you would need to be a real car nut to tell a Ford from a BMW

 

[Admiral Beez]

As can be seen with modern cars. Cover up the front and rear badges and you would need to be a real car nut to tell a Ford from a BMW

Agreed. I think every car designer today just starts with a jelly bean and adds a badge. But this is not a new thing.... All New Cars Look Alike Is Not A New Idea

As for aircraft, there's a lot of superficial similarities in appearance in the Armstrong Albemarle and B-25 Mitchell.
Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle

 

[pbehn]

Agreed. I think every car designer today just starts with a jelly bean and adds a badge. But this is not a new thing.... All New Cars Look Alike Is Not A New Idea

As for aircraft, there's a lot of superficial similarities in appearance in the Armstrong Albemarle and B-25 Mitchell.
Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle

Designers of small cars start with a floor plan and cage arrangement that will pass safety crash tests, that's why there is nothing small or cute about todays "Mini".

 

[GrauGeist]

Though they never met in combat, the Savoia-Marchetti SM.91 and the P-38 were close in appearance and has similar performance. The SM.91 came too late in the war to go into production, so it was never able to show it's full potential.

 

[Glider]

Visually in silhouette, there is next to no difference between an Me410 and a Mosquito a point often not noticed. It caused some confusion later in the war during the Little Blitz where 410's were used as bombers and Mosquito's were of course the defending night fighters. The NF's having to take particular care before opening fire.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Of course we must mention the trio of Mitsubishi A6M, Gloster F.5/34 and Caproni Vizzola F.5.

SAAB would have made it a quartet.

Urban's blog: Cancelled SAAB aircraft projects

 

[Acheron]

How about the Re 2000 and the XP-41.

Pretty similar, though the Sekersky never got far, no?

Spitfire and 109 pretty much matched each other from 1936 to 1945.

Given that these are the two favorite planes for many, I wonder if people here cannot point out significant differences. Wasn't the Spitfire usually more agile, while the Me-109 was a tad faster, or am I thinking of a specific time period? Also, wasn't the design philosophy of the Me-109 "the strongest engine in the smallest airframe"? Is the same true for the Spitfire?

With convergent evolution in engineering things designed to the same rules with the same desired outcomes tend to look the same. The Hawker Sea Fury and Grumman Bearcat came from completely different routes but looked and performed pretty much the same.

According to wikipedia, the Sea Fury had the slightly stronger engine but apparently weighted a bit more, I take it these two cancelled each other out?

Though they never met in combat, the Savoia-Marchetti SM.91 and the P-38 were close in appearance and has similar performance. The SM.91 came too late in the war to go into production, so it was never able to show it's full potential.

Which is why it is a bit troublesome to truly evaluate the SN.91 I would say, no?

Visually in silhouette, there is next to no difference between an Me410 and a Mosquito a point often not noticed. It caused some confusion later in the war during the Little Blitz where 410's were used as bombers and Mosquito's were of course the defending night fighters. The NF's having to take particular care before opening fire.

I should have pointed out that I am interested in similar performances, not appearances, in that regard, I assume the Me-410 was way behind the Mosquito, as it left the Luftwaffe seething in envy. AFAIK, weren't the P-51 and Me-109 somewhat similar in appearance? Yet how were they different except for range?

 

[fastmongrel]

Wasn't the Spitfire usually more agile, while the Me-109 was a tad faster, or am I thinking of a specific time period?

The balance of speed and agility of the Merlin Spits and 109s up to the G series was remarkably similar. I doubt if in the real world they were ever more than a few mph or a tenth of a turn apart.

Personally I think the Griffon Spits pulled out a gap but that could have much to do with production quality declining.

 

[GrauGeist]

Several instances during the war where the earlier P-51 (like the P-51B) was mistaken for the Bf109.

 

[pbehn]

According to wikipedia, the Sea Fury had the slightly stronger engine but apparently weighted a bit more, I take it these two cancelled each other out?

?

My point was they came from completely different directions on different sides of the Atlantic. The Bearcat was a lightened and optimised continuation of the Hellcat while the Sea Fury was a navalised Fury which was a lightened and optimised Tempest. Despite having different engines they had radial engines which were about as far as they could go in terms of power. With the same knowledge of aerodynamics, and the same requirements as far as take off and landing from ships, the all round visibility, range and performance they come out pretty much the same. Paint a Sea Fury in dark blue with stars on the wings and what do you have? The most obvious difference is their colour scheme the other differences are actually quite small, but as big as anyone wants to make them.

 

[cherry blossom]

Japan is famous for the Army and the Navy building aircraft for the same roles with often rather similar performance. At the start of the Pacific War the A6M2 and the Ki-43-I had fairly similar performance as expected with the same engine. The D3A and Ki-51 were fixed undercarriage dive bombers although the Ki-51 was smaller. They again had the same engine. At the end, the Ki-100 was ahead of the A6M8 but there was still not too much difference in performance.

Added as edit: The A5M and Ki-27 were also not that different.

 

[Acheron]

The balance of speed and agility of the Merlin Spits and 109s up to the G series was remarkably similar. I doubt if in the real world they were ever more than a few mph or a tenth of a turn apart.

Personally I think the Griffon Spits pulled out a gap but that could have much to do with production quality declining.

Interesting. Both aircraft featured so prominently during the itself quite prominent BoB. Can it be that this caused minor differences in performance to be quite well known?

Several instances during the war where the earlier P-51 (like the P-51B) was mistaken for the Bf109.

Though I trust they were not that similar in performance?

My point was they came from completely different directions on different sides of the Atlantic. The Bearcat was a lightened and optimised continuation of the Hellcat while the Sea Fury was a navalised Fury which was a lightened and optimised Tempest. Despite having different engines they had radial engines which were about as far as they could go in terms of power. With the same knowledge of aerodynamics, and the same requirements as far as take off and landing from ships, the all round visibility, range and performance they come out pretty much the same. Paint a Sea Fury in dark blue with stars on the wings and what do you have? The most obvious difference is their colour scheme the other differences are actually quite small, but as big as anyone wants to make them.

Thanks for pointing these two out to me. Sounds like the Sea Fury was more similar to the Bearcat than the Tempest from which it was developed?

Japan is famous for the Army and the Navy building aircraft for the same roles with often rather similar performance. At the start of the Pacific War the A6M2 and the Ki-43-I had fairly similar performance as expected with the same engine. The D3A and Ki-51 were fixed undercarriage dive bombers although the Ki-51 was smaller. They again had the same engine. At the end, the Ki-100 was ahead of the A6M8 but there was still not too much difference in performance.

Added as edit: The A5M and Ki-27 were also not that different.

Ah of course! I am frankly surprised that the Japanese aircraft manufacturers served both services, instead of a manufacturer working exclusively for one. Correct me if I am wrong, but at times, the IJA and the IJN were more liked allied forces than militaries of the same nation?

 

[GregP]

The P-51 and Bf 109 had almost nothing alike. The basic fin and rudder shape were different, the wings were miles apart, especially aerodynamically. The radiators were unrelated except for being radiators and the landing gear were as different as they can be and still be landing gear. For most of their operational lives, the P-51 was considerably faster. The Bf 109K closed the gap but was fast in a straight line only. I don't see these two as similar at all except for both being single engine piston fighter aircraft with a single pilot.

But, that's just how I see it. Maybe you could tell me how they seem similar to you.

The IJN and IJA were more like enemies than allies. They hated each other.

 

[GrauGeist]

Though I trust they were not that similar in performance?

No, but in the heat of battle, it can be difficult to identify another aircraft until it's well within range. Especially if it's a type that hasn't been encountered before.

A great piece that details this problem, can be read here: 354th Fighter Group During WWII

Also, an excerpt from Hans Neulen's "In the Skies of Europe" (page 166) detailing an encounter of P-51s by Bulgarian pilots:

"During the last Allied raid on Sofia, on 17 April, the II./6th fighter scrambled seven Dewoitines (plus 16 Bf 109s), against 350 B-17s and B-24s escorted by 100 P-51 Mustangs. Bulgarian pilots, who up to that time had encountered only P-38s, mistook the P-51s for their own Bf 109s and before they realized their mistake, seven Bf 109G-6s had been shot down. That day the Bulgarian Air Force suffered the heaviest losses since the beginning of the war: nine fighters shot down and three that had to crash land. Six pilots lost their lives."