The slowest single-seat, single-engined, prop, monoplane, retractible undercarriage fighter?

[nuuumannn]

It's stretching the the parameters but I believe the first batch of tropical Hurricanes with the Vokes filter were struggling to do 300mph.

Yup, what's worse was that the first Hurricane Mk.Is that arrived with Treble One Sqn in 1937, with their big wooden fixed pitch props and fabric covered wings could barely make 280 mph going down hill, even though the Hurricane was supposed to be the RAF's first 300 mph fighter!

 

[Carrera2]

You didn't say it had to be a monoplane. I'm sure there were some biplanes that saw service in WW II that were slower than most of those A/C mentioned.

 

[Carrera2]

Oh, Sorry, my bad, you DID say monoplane!

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Yup, what's worse was that the first Hurricane Mk.Is that arrived with Treble One Sqn in 1937, with their big wooden fixed pitch props and fabric covered wings could barely make 280 mph going down hill, even though the Hurricane was supposed to be the RAF's first 300 mph fighter!

First 400 mph fighter, as least according to the propaganda after the flight of John (Downwind) Gillian from Edinburgh to Northolt In 1938.
In terms of construction the Hurricane was a biplane masquerading as a monoplane.

 

[P-39 Expert]

How about the A6M2 Zero? Japanese tests show 275kts at 5000meters, or 316mph at 16400'.

 

[nuuumannn]

First 400 mph fighter, as least according to the propaganda after the flight of John (Downwind) Gillian from Edinburgh to Northolt In 1938.
In terms of construction the Hurricane was a biplane masquerading as a monoplane.

Yup, with a massive tailwind. Gillan's flight from Turnhouse did wonders for the reputation of the type, which was also suffering high rates of former biplane pilots forgetting to lower their undercarriages on landing, too. Pretty much.

 

[Gekko13]

Blackburn Skua

 

[Simon Thomas]

I fell in that hole - the Skua is two seat.

 

[elbmc1969]

Blackburn Roc was a two-seater.

It was also, of course, a piece of crap.

Yeah, but it's the only one where you shout, "Oh, no, he's on our 6!" and the pilot answers, "Thank god."

 

[R Leonard]

Mitsubishi A5M . . . about 270 mph

2-17-21- - - Oh, my bad. Missed the landing gear part.

 

[Shortround6]

Mitsubishi A5M . . . about 270 mph

You can't retract the landing gear on an A5M without a good hacksaw?

 

[SaparotRob]

You can't retract the landing gear on an A5M without a good hacksaw?

What if you come in too low and clip the lip of the flight deck?

 

[MiTasol]

Wikipedia shows a faster 316 mph. Not that Wiki is a reliable source of much.

Polikarpov I-16 - Wikipedia

Damn, I always thought Wiki was a very reliable source of misinformation.

 

[SaparotRob]

Wikipedia gets trashed a lot here but yet it's frequently quoted. I'm going back to Caidin.

 

[fastmongrel]

I'm going back to Caidin

Huh?

 

[GrumpyOldCrewChief]

Ah, yes, the venerable Martin Caidin. Celebrated author, and perpetuator of more myths than any one person should be allowed. He loved to play "fast-and-loose" with the facts, fitting (or changing) the facts to the narrative he wished to tell, rather than letting the facts tell the story. A popular author, but not the best as an actual historian.

 

[SaparotRob]

Ah, yes, the venerable Martin Caidin. Celebrated author, and perpetuator of more myths than any one person should be allowed. He loved to play "fast-and-loose" with the facts, fitting (or changing) the facts to the narrative he wished to tell, rather than letting the facts tell the story. A popular author, but not the best as an actual historian.

That's all right. I'm not the best actual student of history.

 

[CORSNING]

 

[TheMadPenguin]

Damn, I always thought Wiki was a very reliable source of misinformation.

What would happen if you folk-in-the-know became Wiki editors? EVERYTHING about WWII aircraft would become much more accurate.

 

[Steve Hnz]

I believe the thing with Wikipedia is that anyone can join up & edit incorrect entries as long as there is the reference to back it up. I don't mind using Wiki because I figure there are usually people out there ready to pounce on inaccurate info, even if they're not from this forum. Afaics, its reputation for being slightly inaccurate or slightly misinforming folk is nowhere near as deserved as it might have been in the past. Hell, I even went on it to correct the height of a mountain near my home town, so if you're seeing something wrong, join up, arm yourself with some decent refences & have at it.