Thoughts on the Dewoitine D.376?

[Admiral Beez]

As the very first single-seat, monoplane carrier fighter with folding wings I have to give the French credit for the Dewoitine D.376. It's too bad the French didn't follow up on their innovative lead.

When the D.376 entered French naval service in 1937, the RN was flying the Hawker Nimrod, the USN the Grumman F3F and the IJN the Mitsubishi A5M. I'd say against the first two the 4mg, 240 mph Dewoitine has good odds, but the A5M tops all.

Thoughts on the D.376?

 

[glennasher]

Were any of the parasol fighters worth a hoot? I know the Poles had one, and possibly that French one, but how many other countries adopted parasol fighters? I can't think of any others off the top of my head. Without retractable landing gear, I'd think they were at a distinct disadvantage, since it would likely slow them down too much.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Were any of the parasol fighters worth a hoot?

We'd need to compare them to the biplanes of the time. For example, when the precursor D.371 (and for that matter the parasol PZL P.11) first flew the Brits were flying the Fairey Flycatcher, the USN the Curtiss F11C Goshawk and the IJN the Nakajima A1N. I give the Dewoitine strong odds. The Nakajima, for instance was woefully slow compared to the D.371 - the IJN truly took a massive leap ahead of everyone with the introduction of the superlative A5M.

The parasol layout likely allowed for the introduction of folding wings, something no single-seat biplane carrier fighter presented. As a stage in the development of the folding-wing monoplane, single-seat carrier fighter, the D.376 gave us that at least. The British didn't have a version of their own until the Seafire of about 1943, and Japan, Zero's wing tips aside, never at all. Even the USN took another four years before introducing their first folding-wing fighter with the Wildcat's STO-wing in 1941.

 

[fubar57]

Swordfish, though not a biplane fighter had folding wings

 

[pbehn]

Swordfish, though not a biplane fighter had folding wings

There were bi planes flown off submarines between the wars and the Blackburn Skua first flew in 1937.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Swordfish, though not a biplane fighter had folding wings

Ok.

There were bi planes flown off submarines between the wars and the Blackburn Skua first flew in 1937.

Yes there were bi-planes, and two and three seaters with folding wings before the 1937 introduction of the D.376. For example, here's the Short Folder of 1913.

The Dewoitine D.376 gave us the first monoplane, folding wing single-seat carrier fighter. It's noteworthy that it took almost 25 years after Short patented the wing fold.

 

[fubar57]

You edited your second post

 

[fubar57]

There were bi planes flown off submarines between the wars and the Blackburn Skua first flew in 1937.

I never knew that, thanks

 

[pbehn]

Ok.
The topic of discussion is single-seat monoplane carrier fighters.

What was the Skua? I thought the "topic" was just declaring wonderful French technology and pointing to crap British technology like most of your jingoistic threads. There were 29 Dewotine 376's built so the French must have had a similar opinion to me, it wasn't very good. Try drinking some tea without salt for your next thread. Making wings foldable isn't that difficult.

 

[pbehn]

I never knew that, thanks

I am scrambling around in the dark trying to find what the point of discussion is, apart from the British werent as good as anyone else at any time, a regular theme with the "Admiral". I wasnt questioning your post, just adding to it with information most already know (I am certain you did).

 

[Admiral Beez]

What was the Skua?

It was a twin-seat fighter-bomber. One of my favourite pre-war carrier aircraft. When it was withdrawn from FAA service in 1941, all of them should have been transferred to the RAF and deployed as CAS in Malaya, giving the RAF in the Far East a dive bombing capability that they wouldn't have until the Vultee Vengeance in 1943. Imagine this as RAF Seletar in early 1941 when the first RAF transfers arrive.

But I digress, I should be writing on the single-seat naval fighters with folding wings.

Making wings foldable isn't that difficult.

I would think to agree with you, which makes one wonder why no one else bothered to make a folding-wing single-seat fighter, of any wing configuration until the 1940s.

Here's USS Langley's (CV-1) hangar. This space is just crying out for more compact aircraft stowage.

When the Hawker Nimrod replaced the Fairey Flycatcher the FAA's fighter wingspan increased by four feet. That's a sizeable increase in needed stowage space. Did the British Air Ministry see the D.376 and decide folding wings wasn't worth the trouble?

 

[pbehn]

It was a twin-seat fighter-bomber. One of my favourite pre-war carrier aircraft. When it was withdrawn from FAA service in 1941, all of them should have been transferred to the RAF and deployed as CAS in Malaya. But I digress, I should be writing on the single-seat naval fighters with folding wings.I would think to agree with you, which makes one wonder why no one else bothered to make a folding-wing single-seat fighter, of any wing configuration until the 1940s.

Here's USS Langley's (CV-1) hangar. This space is just crying out for more compact aircraft stowage.

View attachment 563383

When the Hawker Nimrod replaced the Fairey Flycatcher the FAA's fighter wingspan increased by four feet. That's a sizeable increase in needed stowage space. Did the British Air Ministry see the D.376 and decide folding wings wasn't worth the trouble?

Folding the wings backwards doesn't create more space though it may be more convenient for some things, it seems to block any access to the cockpit t.o my un trained eye

 

[Admiral Beez]

Folding the wings backwards doesn't create more space though

When I look at this pic of HMS Argus, I cant help but think backward folding Hurricanes would have created more space, though vertical fold perhaps more so.

Here's Argus with folding aircraft.

 

[Graeme]

Were any of the parasol fighters worth a hoot?

I haven't found out which "swing wing" flew first - the Morane-Sauliner MS 226bis or the Dewoitine D 376 - but around this time the French had come to the conclusion the parasol shipboard fighter was "conceptually obsolescent".
I've read where the D 376 as a result of being "navalised" was inferior to the D 371.

 

[Graeme]

which makes one wonder why no one else bothered to make a folding-wing single-seat fighter, of any wing configuration until the 1940s.

The Brits were probably first with the novel Beardmore...

 

[Admiral Beez]

I've read where the D 376 as a result of being "navalised" was inferior to the D 371.

Like the Spitfire-derived Seafire, I don't think many naval aircraft conversions presented any performance gain over their often lighter land-based brethren. Though come to think of it, such fighter conversions were rare. I can think of the Sea Hurricane, Bf 109T, Bell Airabonita and Reggiane Re.2001.

 

[fubar57]

Bf 109T

 

[Shortround6]

Thoughts on the D.376?

It sucked less than many French planes?

The Grumman F3F-2 entered service in 1937 also, while the wings didn't fold the landing gear did

It was faster than the D.376 despite being a biplane.

 

[pbehn]

When I look at this pic of HMS Argus, I cant help but think backward folding Hurricanes would have created more space, though vertical fold perhaps more so.

View attachment 563385

Here's Argus with folding aircraft.

View attachment 563386

What would you rather send after a JU 88 or FW Condor? 1 Hurricane or 10 Dewotines?

 

[Admiral Beez]

What would you rather send after a JU 88 or FW Condor? 1 Hurricane or 10 Dewotines?

If service dates are irrelevant, I'll take Hawker Sea Furies please.

The D.376 was no longer in service when the Sea Hurricane was introduced. Now, had the British followed the D.376's lead on folding wings for single-seat fighters, HMS Argus May have had more Sea Hurricanes to shoot down more Ju 88 and Condors.

It's shameful that the British, having pioneered the single-seat naval fighter should not have a folding-wing example in general fleet service until 1943. Of course that's more to do with the FAA's new idea of a twin-seat fighter, which of course did have folding wings. I'd like to think had the FAA, instead of the Fulmar chosen to continue with single seat fighters (starting with the Camel, then the Nightjar, Flycatcher, Nimrod and Gladiator), whatever it came up with would have been history's second single-seat, monoplane fighter with folding wings.