The best fighter of the 1930s

[bf109xxl]

The effect of the retracting landing gear was a major aspect of the close to 30mph (increase top speed from 180mph to 210mph) change.

30 mph is rather an overestimate. In practice, the difference reached 10-15 km/h, judging by reports on tests of I-16M-22 with retractable (Serial No.421230) and non-retractable (Serial No.4217) landing gear. The latter was even more stable in flight.

The US technical level in the 1930s was far superior to that of the Soviets, so the reasons for "military conservatism" may differ.

 

[Just Schmidt]

Soviet machine-gun technician Viktor M. Sinaisky recalled

I'm not doubting the gun would have problems, especially early on. But when Sinaisky implies that it jammed constantly, AND managed to shoot everything off in a very short time, he's having his cake and eating it.

 

[bf109xxl]

I'm not doubting the gun would have problems, especially early on. But when Sinaisky implies that it jammed constantly, AND managed to shoot everything off in a very short time, he's having his cake and eating it.

Rare jamming was not the real problem - the pilot had just to yank the bolt. It was easy unlike the large caliber machine guns. Sinaiski was a gunner on the DB-3F - machine gun operating conditions were different from fighter ones.

 

[Shortround6]

30 mph is rather an overestimate. In practice, the difference reached 10-15 km/h, judging by reports on tests of I-16M-22 with retractable (Serial No.421230) and non-retractable (Serial No.4217) landing gear. The latter was even more stable in flight.

The 30mph speed difference is for the Vega-Orion. The Vega-Orion combination was one of the most streamlined aircraft of it's time.

See.

From Page 88.
" The Lockheed Vega, illustrated in figure 4.3, represented the highest level of aerodynamic efficiency achieved by a high wing monoplane with fixed landing gear in 1930. Reduction in drag and subsequent improvements in the performance of the a monoplane such as the Lockheed Vega could obviously be achieved by retracting the landing gear. Retracting the landing gear on a high drag aircraft, such as the DH-4, would result in very little improvement in performance since the drag contribution of the landing gear was a relatively small percentage of the of the total drag coefficient. On an aircraft such as the Lockheed Vega, which was characterized by cantilever wings, higher streamlined fuselage, and efficiently cowled engine, the drag of the landing gear would be expected to be a significant portion of the total drag, retracting of the gear would be expected to give a large increase in performance.
The Lockheed Orion, shown in figure 4.8, took this to the next step in improving aerodynamic efficiency. The Orion was a six passenger, low wing monoplane, with the pilot located in an enclosed cockpit forward of the wing. The method of construction employed in the Orion was the same as that utilized in the Vega. The low-wing configuration was particularly adaptable for the use of a retractable landing gear. The gear could be kept short and thus light, and the wing provided an ideal stowage space for the gear in the retracted position. The Steerable tail wheel was also retractable in order to provide further increases in aerodynamic efficiency. .......................................The corresponding value of the zero-lift drag coefficient CD0 is 0.0210......................................a comparison of the with the corresponding values of the Lockheed Vega gives a good indication of the magnitude of of the improvement in aerodynamic efficiency realized by the retracting of the landing gear. The retracting landing gear had been thought for many years to be too heavy for practical in aircraft design; however, the spectacular reductions in drag associated with it's use on an aerodynamically clean aircraft were found to far outweigh the relatively small increases in weight."

A few notes,
The CDO for the Vega was 0.0278
I am not at all sure that the Orion had a retracting tail wheel. I can find no picture in flight with a retracting tail wheel or any picture of a door or recess.

The Orion had a few operational problems. Due to the manor of it's construction it had to be returned to the factory for repairs to structure. More than one were damaged by wheels up landings. There were reasons why many aircraft of the mid 30s used semi retracting landing gear.

CDO 0.0251, how accurate that may be I don't know. Tests from Langley show a 0.0008 increase for the radio antenna on XP-41.

 

[bf109xxl]

The 30mph speed difference is for the Vega-Orion.

Although the engine model was the same according to Table II, the Orion engine was more powerful (see P_0 column). The 100 hp difference is quite large - the contribution of the retractable landing gear was much less than 30 mph that is in a good correspondence with the I-16M-22 data.

In addition: according to the P&W Index of Wasp/R-1340 designated engines the Vega 5C was equipped with Wasp SC1 (450hp) whereas the Orion 9D had S1D1 with 550hp.

 

[Shortround6]

Although the engine model was the same according to Table II, the Orion engine was more powerful (see P_0 column). The 100 hp difference is quite large - the contribution of the retractable landing gear was much less than 30 mph that is in a good correspondence with the I-16M-22 data.

Performance figures for the Orion with the 450hp engine are a speed of 210mph (?).

You are going to find performance numbers all over the place, varying a little bit on engine and model. And there were many models as back in the 20s and 30s the US NACA was issuing type certificates practically at the drop of a hat. Sometimes it was a different engine and sometimes it was just a different seating arrangement or payload.
Lockheed also did quite a bit of work rebuilding older versions to newer ones and changing the engines. Not all planes that got the engine cowl got the landing gear spats which also screws things up.

One Orion was given a Wright R-1820-F21 engine of 645hp at sea level and is supposed to have been good for 242mph. (ATC 512) which is different than the two Orion 9-Bs with R-1820-E engines of 575hp. (ATC 462) Please note that the planes with the Wright engines used larger diameter cowls to cover the larger diameter engines.

The Orion 9 was ATC 421 and was listed at 210mph 6000ft. Most other specs do not give altitude which further confuses things. I would also note that not all of the Vegas even had the same shape spats. Wither that was factory or modified afterward I don't know. However of the 30 (?) Vega 5-Cs that show up in the registration records only 6 were originally built as 5-Cs. 4 seem to have built as just Vega 1s with 220hp Wright Whirlwinds so the range of modifications is rather large.

 

[bf109xxl]

Performance figures for the Orion with the 450hp engine are a speed of 210mph (?).

The table contains clear specifications of the aircraft models (Vega 5C and Orion 9D) as well as values of the engine maximum power that perfectly corresponds P&W specifications.

According to the book by R.J.Fracillon "Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913" Orion 9 with Wasp A (410hp) or Wasp C (420hp) had maximum speed .of 220 mph at sea level (!), however, this value is not consistent with cruise speed of 175 mph (205 for the Orion 9D from the same source).
Conceivably, the comparison of the I-16M-22 prototypes is also not quite correct - taking into account the difference in climb rate and take-off weight, I assume that the engine of the version with non-retractable landing gear was less powerful, hence, the real difference in speed should be even less.

 

[fannum]

As mentioned, I don't think there's any value in arguing about "BEST" but am enjoying the listing and discussing of the important fighters of the 30s.
Did anyone mention the Gladiator biplane? Remember that it was the foundation of the RAF home defense in September, '39, and remained in service through '44.
It was an effective fighter for not only the Brits, but Finns, Norwegians, Chinese, Iraqi's, and Greeks, not only gaining credit for many kills, but a bunch of aces, downing Me109s, Zeros, as well as the lesser adversaries.
It served in all theaters from Arctic to Equator, Europe to Far East, and kept Malta in Allied hands with Faith, Hope and Charity.
Remarkably, RAF Gladiators engaged in dogfights with Iraqi Gladiators.
Did any other biplane fighter stay in service longer?

 

[Clayton Magnet]

According to Wikipedia, the I-15 was used in Spain until the 1950's
"...the I-15 and the I-15bis, did fly with the Republican Air Force during the conflict and, later, captured examples of both types were used by the Fuerzas Aéreas till the early 1950s."

And obviously not a fighter, but the longest serving biplane is probably the Polikarpov Po-2, being produced from the late 20's until the late 50's

 

[fannum]

According to Wikipedia, the I-15 was used in Spain until the 1950's
"...the I-15 and the I-15bis, did fly with the Republican Air Force during the conflict and, later, captured examples of both types were used by the Fuerzas Aéreas till the early 1950s."

Thank you, and a remarkable longevity, albeit not in the fighter role, but training.
I'll note that Gladiators were still serving as fighters when withdrawn from service.
All this is good information.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

The CR.42 probably outlived the Gladiator in a fighter role, as it wasn't withdrawn from that role until 1945 in Sweden.
A CR.42 pilot of Nachtschlachtgruppe 7 even claimed a P-38 as a kill in February of 1945

 

[fannum]

The CR.42 probably outlived the Gladiator in a fighter role, as it wasn't withdrawn from that role until 1945 in Sweden.
A CR.42 pilot of Nachtschlachtgruppe 7 even claimed a P-38 as a kill in February of 1945

More good information. Thank you.

Not 30s biplanes, but:
I recall a report in the news in the day (Stars and Stripes?) of a T-6 spotter plane in Korea, equipped with rockets and machine guns that was attacked by a NK IL-10, and managed to shoot it down.
Also, twice AD Skyraiders were attacked by NVN MiG-17s and emerged the victors.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Not 30s biplanes, but:
I recall a report in the news in the day (Stars and Stripes?) of a T-6 spotter plane in Korea, equipped with rockets and machine guns that was attacked by a NK IL-10, and managed to shoot it down.
Also, twice AD Skyraiders were attacked by NVN MiG-17s and emerged the victors.

A lowly Po-2 "destroyed" an F-94 as well. Probably the only ever biplane kill on a jet

The Time a Biplane “Shot Down” a Modern Jet Fighter – Reality Behind the Story - Military History - Military Matters

Now legend on internet forums, this article explores the time a biplane is said to have shot down a state-of-the-art jet fighter.

militarymatters.online

 

[fannum]

A lowly Po-2 "destroyed" an F-94 as well. Probably the only ever biplane kill on a jet

The Time a Biplane “Shot Down” a Modern Jet Fighter – Reality Behind the Story - Military History - Military Matters

Now legend on internet forums, this article explores the time a biplane is said to have shot down a state-of-the-art jet fighter.

militarymatters.online

Sounds like low time F-94 pilots maneuvering low and slow did not take into account of the speed lost when their machine guns fired ... enough to induce a stall/spin into the sea.
This was a common cause of loss of control in Naval Advanced Training in the 60s when F9F-8 Cougars would tighten their turn to follow the tow target, and when the 20mm cannons fired, the recoil energy loss would induce a spin. There are accounts in 'Nam when F-4Es "departed the normal flight parameters" when firing their gun while maneuvering.

 

[Shortround6]

Did anyone mention the Gladiator biplane? Remember that it was the foundation of the RAF home defense in September, '39, and remained in service through '44.

The Gladiator was not the foundation of RAF home defense in Sept 1939. The Gladiator never equipped more than 8 RAF fighter squadrons at the same time, during it's career.
It was used by 19 (?) Home Fighter squadrons as they transitioned from Hawker Furies/Demons and Gloster Gauntlets to Hurricanes and Spitfires. They were also used by 14 (?) RAF squadrons in the Mid east (not all at the same time ?)
In Sept 1938 Gladiators equipped 6 squadrons, Hurricanes 2 and Spitfires 0.
In Sept 1939 Gladiators equipped 4 squadrons (Auxiliary Air force) , Hurricanes 16 and Spitfires 11. Blenheim fighters equipped 7 squadrons.
This is at home, 4 of the Hurricane squadrons went to France pretty quickly, two Gladiator squadrons also went. There was some shuffling of squadrons as more Hurricanes went to France and as more squadrons were equipped with Hurricanes and Spitfires.
By the time of the BoB I believe that the number of Gladiator squadrons in Fighter Command (home) was down to two (many were in the mid east).

Last recorded RAF use of the Gladiator was in Jan 1945 on weather recon. They did a lot of secondary duties during the war.

 

[fannum]

The Gladiator was not the foundation of RAF home defense in Sept 1939. The Gladiator never equipped more than 8 RAF fighter squadrons at the same time, during it's career.
It was used by 19 (?) Home Fighter squadrons as they transitioned from Hawker Furies/Demons and Gloster Gauntlets to Hurricanes and Spitfires. They were also used by 14 (?) RAF squadrons in the Mid east (not all at the same time ?)
In Sept 1938 Gladiators equipped 6 squadrons, Hurricanes 2 and Spitfires 0.
In Sept 1939 Gladiators equipped 4 squadrons (Auxiliary Air force) , Hurricanes 16 and Spitfires 11. Blenheim fighters equipped 7 squadrons.
This is at home, 4 of the Hurricane squadrons went to France pretty quickly, two Gladiator squadrons also went. There was some shuffling of squadrons as more Hurricanes went to France and as more squadrons were equipped with Hurricanes and Spitfires.
By the time of the BoB I believe that the number of Gladiator squadrons in Fighter Command (home) was down to two (many were in the mid east).

Last recorded RAF use of the Gladiator was in Jan 1945 on weather recon. They did a lot of secondary duties during the war.

I can't find the source and am too tied up to search, but they contended that more Gladiators (and possibly Hinds/Hectors) were in ready service in mid-39 than either Hurricanes (the largest #) or a lesser # of Spitfires. IIRC, this involved operational aspects such as spares, maintenance status and pilot training.

Not to quibble about # of squadrons or total a/c, the point to consider is that in this transitional period, a large # if not the bulk of the operational fighters were still biplanes. Of course, priorities shifted rapidly, and Gladiators rapidly disappeared from the leading squadrons in months.

 

[GTX]

From the perspective of the number produced, the number of kills credited to pilots flying and potentially even longevity in operational service , the Bf109 would have to be hard to beat with the following stats:

• Number produced: ~35,000
• Kills credited: ~15,000
• Longevity: Arguable 27 December 1965 with HA-1112 derivative though last 'pure' BF109 operational flight was 13 March 1954 in Finland

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Counting exports cumulative Hurricane production surpassed cumulative Gladiator production in December 1939, Spitfires took until end May 1940 to equal production. If you want to remove the 22 interim Sea and the 60 Sea Gladiators as non RAF, there were more Hurricanes by end October 1939.

AIR 20/188, If I read the census document correctly, as of 1 May 1939, Strength Including Stored, Immediate and Workshop Reserves,
Gauntlet: 119 at home, 45 in Middle East, total 164
Gladiator: 139 home, 16 Aden, 64 Middle East, total 219, another 213 on order
Sea Gladiator: 24 home (all stored), 18 Mediterranean, 18 Middle East, total 60.
Hurricane: 290 at home, another 1,582 on order
Spitfire 142 at home, another 1,544 on order.

Home
Gauntlet, 615 and 616 squadrons, Station Flight Eastchurch
Gladiator, 603 and 607 squadrons, Station Flight Mildenhall, Aldergrove
Hurricane, 1, 3, 17, 32, 43, 46, 56, 73, 79, 85, 87, 111, 11, 213, 501, 404 squadrons, Station Flight Northolt, 11 Fighter Group Pool etc.
Spitfire, 19, 41, 54, 65, 66, 72, 74, 602, 611 squadrons, Central Flying School.

Egypt/Palestine, 6, 33 squadrons Gauntlet, 33, 80 squadrons Gladiator, Aden 94 squadron Gladiator.

AIR 20/2022 as of 3 September 1939,
Gauntlet: 93 home, 44 Middle East, total 137
Gladiator: 208 home, 16 Aden, 9 Iraq, 126 Middle East, total 359
Hurricane: 377 home, 2 Middle East, total 379
Spitfire: 247 home.

All up 8,214 aircraft at home and 1,340 overseas, including 3,539+123 trainers and communication types. The USAAF as of end August 1939 says it had 2,440 aircraft including 752 trainers and communication types and 492 fighters.

 

[bf109xxl]

Did anyone mention the Gladiator biplane

No one mentioned the Gladiator for obvious reasons - just because it was neither superior, revolutionary, successful nor progenitive - simply a misconception due to circumstances in a time of uncertainty. It was obsolete already at birth and inferior to some age-mate biplanes (e.g., CR.42, I-153). Nice plane for aerobatics, loved by pilots - I guess, I listed all the merits of the Gladiator.
The Gladiator had any appreciable effectiveness in secondary theaters of war mainly due to a high motivation and/or training of their pilots. In some cases the effectiveness of the Gladiator was overestimated due to overclaiming (e.g., in the Winter war).

 

[Shortround6]

t more Gladiators (and possibly Hinds/Hectors) were in ready service in mid-39 than either Hurricanes (the largest #) or a lesser # of Spitfires. IIRC, this involved operational aspects such as spares, maintenance status and pilot training.

Not to quibble about # of squadrons or total a/c, the point to consider is that in this transitional period, a large # if not the bulk of the operational fighters were still biplanes. Of course, priorities shifted rapidly, and Gladiators rapidly disappeared from the leading squadrons in months.

The Gladiator was always intended to be an interim fighter. Something that could be built quickly while Hurricane and Spitfire production ramped up.
Perhaps because it was closer to the Gauntlet in construction they they thought it could be quicker?
We have the advantage of hindsight knowing when actual warfare would break out. The British needed something better than Gauntlets/Furies while the Hurricanes and Spitfires were being built in the numbers needed.
The first production Gladiators flew in Jan/Feb of 1937 and the first production Hurricane flew in Oct 1937. Production of the Hurricane had been delayed by 3 months when they changed to the Merlin II engine and had to come up with a new nose profile. The Gladiator was 8-9 months ahead of the Hurricane. To put this in perspective Hawker had received a 600 plane order on June 3rd, 1936, over 6 months before the first production Gladiator ever flew.

Getting the Merlin into large scale production was also taking a while. The Mercury was the most common engine in British service in the planning of the time. The Mercury was to power the Blenheim and by the end of 1936, 1,568 Blenheims were on order. Getting a few hundred Mercuries for the Gladiator wasn't a problem (for the initial order/s).

The Gladiator did a lot of good work in many areas in the first 2 years of WW II. But being large part of Fighter Command over Britain even in Sept 1939 was not one of them.

The Gladiator was half-way plane. It didn't stand out in any way but it wasn't quite as anachronistic as some other planes.