Sten SMG aircraft: productionized aircraft part 2, the what if

Now this is the more fanciful section of the debate, for aircraft that were projects, or built in few numbers. Such as say the French jockey fighters and other concepts. Merits and demerits will be discussed here. I myself have a few projects to discuss that may be interesting, though they did stay paper projects.

Could we maybe look at some late war Finnish projects and prototypes for a starting point here?

What about the Renard R.36/37/38? They were all metal aircraft, but used a metal tube structure instead of a monocoque, and each differed mostly in engine used (HS 12Y, GR 14K or N, and Merlin II or III, respectively).

BarnOwlLover said:

Could we maybe look at some late war Finnish projects and prototypes for a starting point here?

VL. (Finnish) pre.1945 projects and prototypes

VL. (Finnish) pre.1945 projects and prototypes

www.secretprojects.co.uk

Click to expand...

Few words about these, though the link above does explain it pretty well. For some background, up to and during WWII Finland was one of the poorest countries in Europe, the rapid rise in living standards and catching up to a Western European level of prosperity happened only post-WWII. Crude as they are by today's standards, fighter aircraft were the rocket science of the day, so it was perhaps a bit fanciful idea that they would be able to produce a competitive fighter. In a sense, they were desperation projects, as the Finnish air force in the runup to WWII and the early war ears was essentially composed of various small numbers of planes they had managed to buy from all over the place, plus various small numbers of captured enemy planes. I'm sure it was a maintenance nightmare! In the end, Finland managed to acquire sufficient numbers of Buffalos and later Bf109G's to fill out the ranks, so these homegrown planes weren't needed anyway.

During this time, about the only internationally competitive industry Finland had was forest products (lumber and paper mostly). And at the same time, aluminum was difficult to source as well as extremely expensive. Needless to say, the Finnish aircraft industry was very impressed by the appearance of the Mosquito. So in a sense trying to make a fighter from wood was a natural choice for them. Though it seems they had problems with the glues. The Pyörremyrsky was, in a way, a slightly improved BF109 constructed from wood composite. In particular, it had the landing gears the other way, closing inwards, giving it a much wider stance which presumably would have reduced landing and ground accidents, a common complaint of the Bf109. Another construction detail to note is that the engine cowling is longer than on the Bf109, this was done to mount the LKK/42 HMG's instead of the MG 131's on the Bf109. The LKK/42 was a pirate copy of the FN improved Browning aircraft machine gun, firing the 12.7x99 (.50 BMG) cartridge at up to 1200 rpm (though the synchronization surely reduced that, not sure how much). This gun was apparently previous fitted to the Finnish Buffalos to improve the punch compared to the standard M2, so there was an existing logistics chain for the gun & ammo, and they were apparently well regarded. In the end, the Pyörremyrsky prototype flew only after Finland had already exited the war, and the air force had sufficient numbers of Bf109's left over to use until jets replaced them, so the Pyörremyrsky became superfluous.

The irony (small one) was that eastern Finland had metal ores and other raw materials the Soviets wanted, as well as Stalin regarding Finland succeeding from Russia following the 1917 Revolution being a bitter disappointment.

Of course, there's also been the debate that the Allies initially sent poorer quality pilots to the Pacific during the early stages of World War II. And yes, compared to Europe, the Pacific was a secondary theater (I'd argue that the MTO also was until the summer of 1942 for both the Allies and the Axis, save Italy) due to the "defeat Germany first if possible" mindset. But that does seem to be true maybe here for the Soviets. In the Winter War both air and ground forces were initially poorly trained and deficient from a tactical and strategic standpoint. And it does seem that the Soviets still treated Finland as a secondary theater compared to the main German invasion in 1941.

I do believe that Finland wanted an indigenous defense industry, given that they got token help from the western Allies during the Winter War, and the Finns probably hated Nazi Germany's guts for what they were doing all over Europe, let alone in Germany itself.

But you do sort of have to wonder given the relative "junk" the Finns had, if the Soviets were just crap in that area, which is why the Finn's skill was able to offset numerical and relative technical deficits.

Still, I think that the experimental/projected Finnish fighters do show what even given limited resources that ingenuity can do. Granted, we can look at stuff like the P-51 Mustang and Mosquito as well for that.

BarnOwlLover said:

Of course, there's also been the debate that the Allies initially sent poorer quality pilots to the Pacific during the early stages of World War II. And yes, compared to Europe, the Pacific was a secondary theater (I'd argue that the MTO also was until the summer of 1942 for both the Allies and the Axis, save Italy) due to the "defeat Germany first if possible" mindset

Click to expand...

Part of the problem in the Pacific was that they were building up forces. For example one account claims that when Britain sent 99 Hurricanes to the Far east they only sent 24 experience pilots. They formed up 3-4 squadrons (?) and filled in the squadrons with pilots right out of flight school.
Now the squadrons they took the experienced pilots from got replacements from the flight schools but I doubt they took 2/3-3/4 of the pilots from several squadrons. They may have grabbed a small percentage from existing squadrons and just filled in a few replacements per squadron.

The US was doing something similar. Even at army levels. Once a unit was trained up to a certain level they split the unit in two and made two units and filled in with 50% replacements.

BarnOwlLover said:

Of course, there's also been the debate that the Allies initially sent poorer quality pilots to the Pacific during the early stages of World War II. And yes, compared to Europe, the Pacific was a secondary theater (I'd argue that the MTO also was until the summer of 1942 for both the Allies and the Axis, save Italy) due to the "defeat Germany first if possible" mindset.

Click to expand...

The best American pilots, from the USN, went to the Pacific first. Perhaps the Brits sent their problem-children there, I don't know? Should be noted that at least two American future USAAF aces, George Welch and Gabby Gabreski, flew at PH on 7 Dec.

Thumpalumpacus said:

The best American pilots, from the USN, went to the Pacific first. Perhaps the Brits sent their problem-children there, I don't know? Should be noted that at least two American future USAAF aces, George Welch and Gabby Gabreski, flew at PH on 7 Dec.

Click to expand...

could be a bit of both, just because Pilot A was ace (or had shot down a few planes) doesn't mean he may not have been a problem child from a disciplinary standpoint.
Or cracked up on landing a bit more than "average".

Shortround6 said:

could be a bit of both, just because Pilot A was ace (or had shot down a few planes) doesn't mean he may not have been a problem child from a disciplinary standpoint.
Or cracked up on landing a bit more than "average".

Click to expand...

I was talking about technical proficiency. Trapping on a carrier was above and beyond anything AAC pilots had to do at the time. So was navigating over blank ocean. Not sure how discipline issues etc got inserted.

Thumpalumpacus said:

I was talking about technical proficiency. Trapping on a carrier was above and beyond anything AAC pilots had to do at the time. So was navigating over blank ocean. Not sure how discipline issues etc got inserted.

Click to expand...

Different definition of "problem-children"?
With large numbers of new squadrons and losses in France, BoB and NA quite a few of the British/Commonwealth squadrons were not crewed by experienced crews.
Describing low time pilots/crew as problem children seems a bit harsh.

Shortround6 said:

Different definition of "problem-children"?
With large numbers of new squadrons and losses in France, BoB and NA quite a few of the British/Commonwealth squadrons were not crewed by experienced crews.
Describing low time pilots/crew as problem children seems a bit harsh.

Click to expand...

That wasn't my wording; your issue is with the poster to whom I replied. I only, repeat only, pointed out that the American pilots were mostly represented by USN carrier pilots, who were not anyone's dregs. Yes, the Flying Tigers were roughnecks, but most US pilots in the Pacific were not sent there because they were crummy. USN pilots were damned good, and many USAAF pilots were great, too.

Nor am I saying anything about RAF pilots; I don't know enough to comment intelligently on them. I am only, repeat only, saying that the idea that the US sent crummy pilots to the Pac is not supported by history.

Get it now? Read the conversation already.

Thumpalumpacus said:

Get it now? Read the conversation already.

Click to expand...

I have.

BarnOwlLover said:

Now this is the more fanciful section of the debate, for aircraft that were projects, or built in few numbers. Such as say the French jockey fighters and other concepts. Merits and demerits will be discussed here. I myself have a few projects to discuss that may be interesting, though they did stay paper projects.

Click to expand...

Well, the CAC Boomerang certainly qualifies.

I brought up the debate that there was discussion on another thread that pilots in the Pacific weren't as good as those used in Europe. No country would (knowingly or willingly) send crap pilots out to do the job if it could be avoided. Just like how they wouldn't knowingly issue infantry weapons that were just as dangerous to their users as they were to those who they were intended to be used on.

As far as equipment, a lot of the stuff in the Pacific being second string is debatable. Most of the more advanced aircraft got used in the ETO first. Merlin 60 series Spitfires got used in the UK for local defense first, then in North Africa, then the Pacific. Same for the Allison P-51s. P-38s entered wide use in North Africa and the PTO at about the same time. The Merlin P-51s got used first in Europe, then also found their way into the CBI and Pacific.

A lot of this had to do with tactics and strategy. I already mentioned the "beat Germany first" attitude that the Allies generally adopted. And indeed, Spitfire Vs got deployed to the Pacific for the RAF and Commonwealth air forces after they were obsolescent for front line fighter use in Northern Europe. P-40s were widely used in the Pacific, though they weren't suitable for use in Northern Europe as front line fighters.

Of course, the ETO was a high altitude theater, while the MTO and the Pacific were mostly a low altitude theater. Hence the P-40s did OK and so did the Allison Mustangs (both P-51s and A-36s), though in the ETO the P-40 was used mostly as a dive bomber in Italy as Spitfires, P-38s and P-51s became available, and Allison P-51s were used largely for tactical recon.

And, as in two threads about Japanese aircraft, there was a performance deficit between common IJA/IJN aircraft by 1943 vs German aircraft of about the same timeframe (though German fighters also hit a wall as far as making performance gains at much the same time).

Also in fairness, aside from the F4U Corsair, by this time, naval fighters again fell behind land-based fighters in terms of performance. The P-47 was much faster than the F6F Hellcat, though they used similar engines. But comparing land-based fighters to carrier-based ones for the most part is comparing apples to oranges. Different environments, different tactics and strategies, different roles. It was also like in one of the Japanese aircraft threads where the Hellcat was compared to the J2M. Yes, the J2M would be a better dogfighter if flown by the same pilot. But that's comparing a land based, relatively short-ranged interceptor (J2M) to a carrier-based multi-role air superiority fighter (Hellcat). Again, apples to oranges.

As to if the Soviets sent crap or second string pilots to face the Finns during World War II, that's IMO debatable, given how successful a significant number of Soviet pilots were against the Germans. Yet the Finns more than held their own with what was rag-tag, probably second rate equipment until the Germans gave them some Me-109s. And of course, the Soviets weren't above using human wave attacks when they felt that all else failed. Maybe the Russians sent less skilled pilots to fight the Finns as they didn't pose nearly the threat the Germans did. While the Nazis wanted to conquer the Soviet Union, the Finns only wanted to take back what the Russians took from them in 1940.

I think it is a simplification to say that the allies sent 2nd string stuff to the Pacific. The British and thus the Commonwealth sent 2 string equipment and often not much of it.

The US sent what they had in late 1941 and in 1942. The problem was that they didn't have much.
P-40Es and P-39Ds were the best that the US had in Dec 1941. The first 100 or so P-38s were NOT combat capable and the last 100 were either building or just completed and the Crews not trained.
Some of the stuff that Australia got in Dec (?) and Jan/Feb of 1942 was intended for the Philippines and the ships were re-routed.
How well trained the US Army pilots were is subject to debate. The Navy and Marine pilots were as well trained as any in the world. The difference here is that while the Navy and Marines were expanding they were not expanding as fast as the Army. We are also lumping training/flying experience with combat experience which the US had about zero. The US army pilots had probably more training time that just about about anybody except the US Navy and the Japanese.
But for the US Army the number of squadrons in service in 1938-39 was small with the resulting small pool of pilots. Roosevelt had called for a 50,000 plane air force in summer of 1940, it took time. The 524 P-40s ordered in April of 1939 took until May 1941 to be delivered, In part because the Tomahawk I, IA, IB and And IIA's sandwiched in. Also plant expansion. Curtiss had only switched to P-40D & E production in the summer of 1941.
Same for the bombers, Yes the Philippines had the old B-17s but they were getting the new B-17Es and the B-25s and B-26s weren't quite ready yet. Which left A-20s and A-24s (Army Dauntless) which is what showed up in Australia.
The US didn't have much 2nd string stuff to send to the Pacific, They kept the 2nd string stuff in the US to use as operational trainers. Units deploying overseas got brand new planes and the existing planes were passed to the next squadrons to reach the "operational" level for the operational training.

Now, were there any French "jockey" fighters that might have been viable? Of course, I do know that these planes were largely designed to make up for production shortfalls that the French aviation industry was having in 1939/40, and increased production and imports weren't completely offsetting such issues.

BarnOwlLover said:

Now, were there any French "jockey" fighters that might have been viable? Of course, I do know that these planes were largely designed to make up for production shortfalls that the French aviation industry was having in 1939/40, and increased production and imports weren't completely offsetting such issues.

Click to expand...

Basically they were being cheap.

You often see the speed (often without guns) and the Armament and few other details. What you don't see is the climb rate and the cost.
Two were powered by the 700hp G-R 14M like several French twins and the Hs 129. 14 cylinder radials are not cheap even if they are low powered.
Two were powered by X series engines, water cooled V-12s of about 700hp or basically the same engine as the D. 500 and D. 501 fighters. The D.510 got the larger Y series engines.
The fundamental difference between the two engines was that the X used a 130mm bore a and Y used a 150mm bore, they both used a 170mm stoke. Maybe the block was little shorter.
It would be interesting to the cost difference between the two, which is cheaper Chevy 307 V8 or a Chevy 350V8

the last one use the air cooled V-12 Renault of about 500hp, There were two prototypes with more powerful engines. This thing was used by 1 (1?) Polish squadron who crazy mad at the Germans and flew them for a few days despite parts falling off and the French shipped most of the rest to Finland, some dispute as to how many got there. the Finns, who would fly just about most anything, tested them and then used them for trainers, not combat missions. That may tell all you need to know about that airplane. It looked cute though.

There was also the Italian SAI 207 and 403. The 403 (aside from light armament) might have been formidable, but the 207 wasn't popular. It was fast, but poorly armed, had a slow climb rate, and had durability problems.

BarnOwlLover said:

It was fast, but poorly armed, had a slow climb rate, and had durability problems.

Click to expand...

this is a chronic problem with the light fighters.
The Plane

was streamlined (although view from the cockpit?) and used a 149sq ft wing so you could get speed, or at least get close.
The Problem was you had a 750hp engine and in 1942-43 the other guys were using 1400-1500hp engines (Spitfires, Boosted P-40s, 109Gs) and the SAI 207 didn't weigh 1/2 as much.
climb is dependent on the power to weight after you subtract to power needed to fly at minimum drag (induced drag curve crosses profile drag curve) plus whatever margin you need for decent stability/controllability. Many piston engine fighters need 20-30mph more speed for easy flying.
The light fighter gets a double whammy. It isn't operating at 1/2 the drag of the smaller full size fighters (this gets a bit difficult, lumping under 7,000lb Spitfires and 109s, in with 12,000lb Typhoons and P-47s so it is using a bigger percentage of it's power than the 109/Spit.
Most of the light fighters were already using a lighter than normal armament.

IMO, the only "light" fighters that would succeed were only "light" relative to other regular fighters while not sacrificing capability. Probably the best example I can name was the XP=51F/G Mustangs, which were basically lightweight redesigns of what would become the P-51D. Of course, they had 4 .50 MGs instead of the 6 the D usually had (though it was an option for P-51Ds and some pilots preferred it), and had shorter range due to no long range fuselage fuel tank (wasn't a USAAF desire when the XP-51F was designed, and the F/G were primarily wanted as interceptors). But as the P-51A and B were flying with 4 .50s at the time, and there was plans to upgrading the F/G to using 4 20mm cannons in the interceptor role, this at the time wasn't a deficit.

However, the XP-51F/G did weigh about the same as a Spitfire IX/VIII, which makes sense given that they were built to the same structural load standards, and did carry more fuel in the wing tanks (105 gallons per tank vs 92) compared to the B/D, and were powered by basically the same class of Merlin engines. Of course, by the time the XP-51F was ready to fly in 1944, the USAAF wanted long range penetration offensive fighters as their main priority, not defensive interceptors or even moderately long range air superiority fighters.

And though the F was faster than the D at the time (mostly due to aero tweaks such as the new radiator duct and wing profile). the main gain was climb rate for the same power outputs. Of course, the D got better in that regard as Packard and the USAAF approved higher combat boost ratings, but the F would've improved as well because of it's better power to weight ratio.

But the F was lighter compared mainly to the D model (which was the objective of the program), and compared to like say a Spitfire I or Me-109E it was significantly heavier, though those aircraft were designed several years earlier. And at least the F carried the same armor and fuel tank protection as the D model did (so they didn't at least sacrifice that), and the P-51H--which could do deep penetration raids and interception--came out of this program.

That's the big problem overall with most "jockey" or light fighters. They do sacrfice capability (be it climb, armament, and often speed, let alone multi-role capability) because of power, and often size, limitations. Hence why almost all such programs ended up being duds.

Even the Arsenal VG-30 series weren't really "light" fighters, considering that from the VG-31 onwards they used the same types of engines (as far as power) as other French and such fighters (including the VG-32 being powered by an Allison V-1710 C series engine, and later VG-30 series being powered by more advanced 12Y engines, with the planned 40/50 series being powered by the V-1710 F and Merlin engines). Not to mention it was as big and heavy as any other regular fighter of the period for similar power outputs.