Never_Mind
Recruit
- 4
- May 12, 2025
The Bugatti 100p, a racing plane that was meant to be built but was put away due to the german invasion of France. What if it was repurposed as a fighter instead?
What if the Bugatti 100p became a fighter?
- Thread starter Never_Mind
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #4
Never_Mind
Recruit
- 4
- May 12, 2025
May I just ask: Why not?
Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 45,880
- Mar 26, 2007
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,099
- Jun 25, 2013
Except that wasn't turned into a fighter; knowledge gained in its design and construction was used to design a fighter.
Shortround6
Major General
Race planes are not stressed for high turning loads. So you have to beef up (add weight) the structure.
Race planes often have marginal cooling, trying to do an intercept climb (7-10 minutes at full power and low speed) is going to fry the engine.
Race planes often have crap vision, especially to the rear.
Artists often neglect to figure out were stuff is actually located in the plane.
Like landing gear and fuel tanks. It is easy to draw a gun barrel on the front of the wing if you don't have to figure out where the breech and ammo go.
See
oldmachinepress.com
Race planes often have marginal cooling, trying to do an intercept climb (7-10 minutes at full power and low speed) is going to fry the engine.
Race planes often have crap vision, especially to the rear.
Artists often neglect to figure out were stuff is actually located in the plane.
Like landing gear and fuel tanks. It is easy to draw a gun barrel on the front of the wing if you don't have to figure out where the breech and ammo go.
See
Bugatti Model 100P Racer
The Bugatti 100P was designed to set the 3 km absolute world speed record for landplanes and was arguably one of the most beautiful aircraft ever built. WWII prevented the aircraft from being finis…
oldmachinepress.com
Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 45,880
- Mar 26, 2007
That's my point. Italian design was good. Anything after that was complicated.
Supermarine took the lessons. Used the good stuff to get a racer to a fighter.
So that is a thing I hope you can agree.
It is said that those supermarine floatyies where the starting point. Cant imagine why that italian job could not have been the same.
Last edited:
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,099
- Jun 25, 2013
While the Italians did design some fine aircraft, Ettore Bugatti moved to (then German) Alsace in 1909, where he founded his company. The designer of the 100P was Louis de Monge, who was Belgian.
_PabloSniper_
Airman
- 65
- Sep 25, 2024
I think the Bugatti would have made a good fighter.
But in my alternate reality, these are the fighters I would have liked to have seen flying like a fighters.
Macchi-MC72
And H-1 Racer
But in my alternate reality, these are the fighters I would have liked to have seen flying like a fighters.
Macchi-MC72
And H-1 Racer
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Racing aircraft can be excellent test-beds for data applied to fighter aircraft, but themselves are not fit to be fighters.
Here's why:
An aircraft designed to race and/or set records are small, lightweight machines.
They have a limited capacity for fuel and have the smallest capacity for cooling possible (for water-cooled engines).
Their framing is minimal to conserve weight and designed for straight runs and/or banks of a closed course, their landing gear is designed to be as light as possible, meaning taking off and landing from an improved surface.
To convert a racer into a fighter requires increased fuel capacity (plus self-sealing capabilities), enlarge cooling system with increased glycol capacity, pilot armor, weapons and ammunition storage and robust landing gear.
All that's listed above will add hundreds of pounds to the airframe, causing a weight and drag penalty.
A good example of this, would be the Me209 which was designed to set speed records and did, in fact, set an absolute speed record (by V1 "D-INJR") for piston/prop aircraft that stood until the 1960's.
When they tried to convert Me209V4 into a fighter, it's performance was below that of the Bf109E, which was the Luftwaffe's best fighter in service at the time.
So in short, trying to create a fighter out of a racer simply will not work.
Here's why:
An aircraft designed to race and/or set records are small, lightweight machines.
They have a limited capacity for fuel and have the smallest capacity for cooling possible (for water-cooled engines).
Their framing is minimal to conserve weight and designed for straight runs and/or banks of a closed course, their landing gear is designed to be as light as possible, meaning taking off and landing from an improved surface.
To convert a racer into a fighter requires increased fuel capacity (plus self-sealing capabilities), enlarge cooling system with increased glycol capacity, pilot armor, weapons and ammunition storage and robust landing gear.
All that's listed above will add hundreds of pounds to the airframe, causing a weight and drag penalty.
A good example of this, would be the Me209 which was designed to set speed records and did, in fact, set an absolute speed record (by V1 "D-INJR") for piston/prop aircraft that stood until the 1960's.
When they tried to convert Me209V4 into a fighter, it's performance was below that of the Bf109E, which was the Luftwaffe's best fighter in service at the time.
So in short, trying to create a fighter out of a racer simply will not work.
don4331
Senior Airman
While I agree the Bugatti isn't a good candidate to be come a fighter my justifications are slightly different:
A lot of late 30s aircraft had atrocious rear view*, they didn'thave start with pilot armour or self sealing tanks. and fuel capacity was often...limited. And there are more than a few WWII aircraft whose landing gear was barely up to the task. Nations were thinking 2 - RCMG with couple hundred round each was sufficient just before the war.
IMHO, the biggest drawbacks to the 100p are:
While a lot of countries tried the light fighter concept, no one managed to pull it off. I think the Bugatti 100p falls into that trap.
A lot of late 30s aircraft had atrocious rear view*, they didn't
*Do335, Ta154 aren't any better - couple much later examples.
The load which has been missed so far is the radio. Which requires space, adds weight (not just the radio itself, but noise suppression of the engine electrical) and drag from the antenna mast and cable.IMHO, the biggest drawbacks to the 100p are:
The complexity of the landing/flaps/engines interlock. Yes, it took load off the pilot, but it also removed ability to control.
The construction method. Carving the blocks for the engine cooling vanes, the built up hardwood/balsa and the sanding/filling/dope covering weren't conducive to volume manufacturing (Yes, de Havilland managed it with the Mosquito, but they had years of practice before hand, and Mosquito production is fairly modest given how long it was in production and the priority assigned - building with wood is harder to ramp production.) And if you don't keep the beautiful smooth finish, the performance won't be there.
Racing aircraft are fine with fixed pitch propellers, but a fighter should really have a constant speed one. Constant speed contra rotating propeller will add a lot of complexity and weight.
The Bugatti engine are too small and using the Roots blower was wrong choice for an aircraft.
Roots blower doesn't have the efficiency of the centrifugal ones = more power to the supercharger for same boost/less power from the engine due to warmer air.
4.7 liters displacement isn't enough, even doubled to go head to head with 25+ liter engines. (I was surprised that @ 220kg** apiece, the pair aren't that far off the weight of the H-S 12Y <480kg> of 1k hp) Given the engines are more/less centrally located, the additional weight probably wouldn't have upset the apple cart.
** That weight might be for the 'normal' engines with aluminium block, so not the aircraft ones with magnesium block.
We will note Bugatti t50b engines weren't exactly reliable at 500 hp in GP cars over a 2 hr. race (detuning them to 400 hp allowed the cars to see the chequered flag, but the cars were no longer competitive). A 2 hour race is still very short compared to the 100 hr. requirement for British aircraft engines <- this is the major issue with using automotive engines in airplanes, but the time they are de-rated enough to have "reasonable" TBOs, their power/weight isn't so good.
While a lot of countries tried the light fighter concept, no one managed to pull it off. I think the Bugatti 100p falls into that trap.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The omission of radio equipment (two-way, IFF, etc.) was not accidental.
Many aircraft at the start of the war lacked this feature, one such example would be the Japanese, who, by the way, had two production types that closesly match the Bugatti's dimensions (weight, length and width) in the form of the KI-43-I and A6M2.
Howard Gibson
Senior Airman
The estimated speed of 500 to 550mph is nonsense. Even today, the world piston speed record is 528mph plus a smidgen. As noted above, was it stressed for acrobatics? Was it armed?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I suspect that the mentioned speed of 500 to 550 would be in KPH, as it would be roughly 310 to 340 MPH and within reason.
On 26 April 1939, the Me209V1 set the absolute world speed record for a piston powered prop aircraft at 469mph (756kph), beating the world record set a month earlier by the He100V8 at 463.9mph (746.6kph).
Unless the Bugatti racer almost doubled their airframe weight beefing up the structure for military needs, every burst a French 100p pursuit pilot fired would almost be assured of bringing down a plane ... his own ... from structural failure!
An apt comparison of 'successful adaptations' might be Curtiss whose R3C racers were a world of difference from their eventual P-6 Hawk fighter successors; DeHavilland who used experience from their DH88 long range racer experience to create their Mosquito; Supermarine who took S.5/S.6 seaplane racer lessons into the Spitfire; and the "Me209R" "evolving" into the Me109.
Obviously, it takes more than wishful thinking and massive PR to turn a thoroughbred into a working warhorse.
An apt comparison of 'successful adaptations' might be Curtiss whose R3C racers were a world of difference from their eventual P-6 Hawk fighter successors; DeHavilland who used experience from their DH88 long range racer experience to create their Mosquito; Supermarine who took S.5/S.6 seaplane racer lessons into the Spitfire; and the "Me209R" "evolving" into the Me109.
Obviously, it takes more than wishful thinking and massive PR to turn a thoroughbred into a working warhorse.
Antarctica
Airman
- 85
- May 20, 2023
Yes, the 100P was too small & weak to be a fighter but a much enlarged version that looked the same with contra-rotating props & mounting 20mm guns (like the Hurricane) would be nice to see.
One only has to look no further than the Germany's Heinkel HE 100 race plane to understand why the Bugatti 100P wasn't put into military service. "Although it proved to be one of the fastest fighter [ed. fighter is a generous term] aircraft in the world at the time of its development, the design was not ordered into series production."
[source] Heinkel He 100 - Wikipedia
There were numerous reasons for this. Key is the fact that it was a racing plane used for propaganda by the Third Reich. Most important is that racing planes are light weight and built for speed. The HE 100 used a liquid radiator cooling system located in the wings. Any hits to the wings, a large target area to be sure, would compromise the aircraft's cooling system. When it set the speed record, the racing plane had no armor or armament. No armor protection for the pilot, no guns, no bullets and very likely not a lot of fuel. All this this added enough weight that maneuverability and speed became "ordinary". The Messerschmitt Me109, a purpose built fighter, proved superior.
[source] Heinkel He 100 - Wikipedia
There were numerous reasons for this. Key is the fact that it was a racing plane used for propaganda by the Third Reich. Most important is that racing planes are light weight and built for speed. The HE 100 used a liquid radiator cooling system located in the wings. Any hits to the wings, a large target area to be sure, would compromise the aircraft's cooling system. When it set the speed record, the racing plane had no armor or armament. No armor protection for the pilot, no guns, no bullets and very likely not a lot of fuel. All this this added enough weight that maneuverability and speed became "ordinary". The Messerschmitt Me109, a purpose built fighter, proved superior.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The He100 wasn't ordered into production for reasons unknown, not because of it's racing heritage. Some say politics, some suggest the He100 would deprive the Bf109 program of much needed engines, but what is clear, is that at the time the He100 was ready for production, the RLM mandated Messerschmitt build fighters and Heinkel build bombers.
The production version of the He100 had several fuselage changes, enlarged canopy, a conventional cooling system, armed comparable to the Bf109 at the time, was faster and had a better combat radius.
It certainly had potential to evolve beyond a dedicated racing machine.
The production version of the He100 had several fuselage changes, enlarged canopy, a conventional cooling system, armed comparable to the Bf109 at the time, was faster and had a better combat radius.
It certainly had potential to evolve beyond a dedicated racing machine.
I do recall the RLM had mandated Messerschmitt to build fighters and Heinkel build bombers. Creating all the tooling and factory assembly line is an undertaking. The Me109 was already in production, and a proven combat veteran in Spain. As you say, "the He100 wasn't ordered for reasons unknown". I would say there were known possible reasons but none specified by the German Air Ministry or noted in a memo found in German records. I do remember reading an article that after all the required combat changes the aircraft was no better than the Me109. I agree, it certainly had potential.
