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

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Been there done that with the never ending bullshit that the Allison V-1710 did not have a supercharger about five years ago and listed multiple USAAF Tech Orders and the Allison Service School Handbooks.
Within a couple of weeks my edits had been removed.
I gave up.
 
Just had a quick look and that is now a very different page from what I remember with far more accurate information on the whole engine and at least twice the content.
 
Finnish test results:
Fiat G50: 403-430 kmh (250-270 mph) depending on the propeller
Morane-Saulnier MS406 typical : 270mph
Curtiss H75A Hawk: 270 mph with Twin-Wasp (R-1830)
 
Conslaw said:
I didn't see that anyone mentioned the CAC Boomerang. Officially the top speed was 305 MPH, but I suspect none ever reached that figure. CAC Boomerang - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
If not the slowest of them all, the Boomerang has to be the slowest new design single seat fighter that first flies in 1942.

Kawanishi N1K Kyofu, Fighter Seaplane, 355 mph. You know you're sh#t if a seaplane fighter is significantly faster.
Mitsubishi J2M Raiden, 365 mph
Yakovlev Yak-9, 370 mph
Macchi C.205, 399 mph
Lavochkin La-5, 403 mph
Hawker Tempest, 435 mph
Messerschmitt Me 309, 455 mph (few made, deemed not sufficiently better vs. Bf 109)

However you have to give the Australians kudos on their first attempt at a home built fighter.

What's Supermarine's excuse for 1942's slowpoke Seafire at 359 mph. This has to be one of the few variants of an existing design (Bf 109, Fw 190, P-51, etc) that has a version first flying in 1942 that has a slower top speed than previous variants in widescale operation from 1940-41. Sure, the Seafire needed a hook and catapult spools, but this slow bird is pre-folding wing, pre-structural reinforcement of 1943's Seafire Mk.III. It would be interesting to see the Boomerang in mock combat against the early Seafire.
 
buffnut453 said:
The RAAF did conduct test flights of the Boomerang against a Buffalo...and the 2 were pretty evenly matched.
Click to expand...
Hmm.... not a stellar benchmark.

It's surprising they found a first class working Buffalo in 1942. Did some escape Malaya and DEI service intact? Perhaps one was diverted to Aus in its crate once these territories collapsed.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Hmm.... not a stellar benchmark.

It's surprising they found a first class working Buffalo in 1942. Did some escape Malaya and DEI service intact? Perhaps one was diverted to Aus in its crate once these territories collapsed.
Click to expand...

The Buffalo was one of the ex-Dutch long-nose (B339-23) airframes that were diverted to Australia after the fall of the NEI. The trial report includes the rather damning statement that "At no time was the Boomerang able to gain the initiative in the combat." To be fair, the Buffalo wasn't being flown at operational weights...but, still, the Boomerang's performance was sub-par for 1942.
 
fastmongrel said:
Seafires usually had low altitude single stage superchargers. Full throttle height was around 3,000ft no aircraft does 400mph plus at sea level.
Click to expand...
True, the P-47 was only good for 350 mph at sea level. 3,000 ft isn't sea level though.

The Seafire needs to fight at 10,000 feet or more, the altitude where the the dive bombers at Midway were found. It would be useless as an interceptor if it's out of puffs at this height.
 
Admiral Beez said:
How does a company make the P-51 and B-25, both superlative examples of their types, and also make this POS?
Click to expand...
The North American Aviation NA-50 was developed as a simple single-seat, low-wing, single-engined fighter for export. The design was developed from the NA-16/BT-9 basic training aircraft of 1935. The NA-16 evolved into a series of aircraft that were some of the most widely used advanced and basic training aircraft produced by any country, and provided the basic design for a single-engined fighter intended for small countries that needed a simple aircraft with modern capabilities and features.
The NA-50 Torito (Spanish slang for "little bull"), built for Peru, was a single-seat fighter design based on the two-seat Basic Combat Demonstrator NA-44.
In 1940, the Royal Thai Air Force ordered six aircraft similar to the NA-50 that were designated NA-68. The changes in the NA-68 included a modified landing gear, new outer wings, heavier armament, and redesigned tail surfaces similar to those adopted on later production trainers. North American test pilot Lewis Waite flew the first NA-68 on 1 September 1940. In 1940, the NA-68s ordered by the Royal Thai Air Force were en route to Thailand when their export clearance was cancelled and were returned to the United States where they were assigned the designation P-64, disarmed, and used for advanced fighter training.

In short; "Let's put guns on this trainer and call it a fighter, then let's take the guns back off and still call it a fighter".

(edit: Not sure, but taking the guns off might not have degraded its qualities as a fighter...)

(Edit #2: I'll call this the Mouth, as in "The Mouth that Roared with a Lithp")
 
Admiral Beez said:
Did any variant of a trainer ever make a good fighter? Perhaps the Bf 108 Taifun.
Click to expand...

the Bf 108 to Bf 109 is quite a stretch, despite any number of books, websites.

4 seat cabin monoplane (early Beechcraft Bonanza)

using engines of under 300hp

The NA, Vultee "fighters" were based off trainers built to higher strength standards and using 450-600hp engines.
Some of them used common parts and/or panels. I don't believe the 109 used any common parts with the 108.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Worst liquid-cooled, V12-powered, single-engine, single-seat, monoplane, retractable undercarriage fighters of WW2?
2 3
Replies
56
Views
5K
yulzari
A
Heaviest armed Japanese single seat, single engine fighter?
2 3
Replies
41
Views
4K
MIflyer
M
A
Could a single engined, single seat fighter be made for the Lycomings xr-7755?
Replies
8
Views
1K
GrauGeist
Single seat F-82?
Replies
2
Views
925
Admiral Beez
A
Single seat/single engine fighter landing gear positioning logic
Replies
0
Views
489
BarnOwlLover
Menu
Log in
Register