Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
In AK the P-39 pilots found that since the engine was not up front and warming the air bound for the cockpit by its mere presence leading the parade, that cold air tended to leak in. They put tent caps over the holes for the nose machine guns and taped up one of the doors. But ironically, given the location of the engine and radiator, cabin heat should have been no problem.It wouldn't have worked at all, the cabin heater the British specified to get out of the contract totally ruined the P-39/P-40s performance.
I'm reading a book on the Defiant, & the 110 was a new weapon system, Spitfires & Hurricanes didn't do great against them as tactics haven't been formulated yetI gather 110s did pretty well in the Battle of France...?
I think you have that backwards, it was fascists, not communists, that were sabotaging aircraft.By the way, how much sabotage was there of French built aircraft? Until 1941 the Socialists in France opposed fighting the Nazis because they were friends with their idols, the Soviets. The invasion of Poland was in fact a joint invasion by Germany and the USSR. At least a Curtiss built airplane was going to be put together correctly.
No, it was Communists, not Fascists.I think you have that backwards, it was fascists, not communists, that were sabotaging aircraft.
No, it was Communists, not Fascists.
An excerpt from State Capitalism and Working-Class Radicalism in the French Aircraft Industry
(Part three, Chapter seven)
eleted text about general situation and listing a FEW isolated incidents of communist-perpetrated sabatoge
But in fact PCF leaders were not inclined to promote sabotage, and on two occasions clandestine issues of L'Humanité condemned rumors of desertion and sabotage as "provocations." The errors of new workers who were inexperienced, overworked, and poorly trained posed a much more serious problem than did the efforts of a few saboteurs.
If the PCF's stance toward war production turned out in practice to be ambiguous—condemning the war but repudiating sabotage—employers and government officials tried hard to isolate militants. Repression ranged from dismissal of Communist militants from the administrative councils of the national companies to mass firings and reassignments to the army. In his defense at the Riom trial La Chambre went so far as to contend that Daladier's decision to dissolve the Communist Party "had its origins" in La Chambre's warnings about the strength of the PCF in the aircraft industry. From September through June military police rooted out workers suspected of slowing down production. And nonCommunist personnel were by no means immune. In a major purge at SNCM, the nationalized engine-building firm, only 51 of the 102 employees fired or reassigned to the army were so treated "for Communist propaganda." Socialist militants, in fact, also complained of the reprisals they endured. Spanish refugees suffered especially cruel treatment since many of them had taken jobs in the aircraft plants of southwestern France and, as anarchists and Communists, were then thrown into internment camps after the outbreak of war. But for the most part the Air Ministry directed its efforts against French Communists; as late as June 1940 two hundred "Communist leaders considered the most dangerous" to the industry were arrested."
A pilot account from GC II/7;
".. The Dewoitines were being delivered to us piecemeal ('..au compte-goutte..') Finally five pilots and five mechanics flew to Toulouse on board a Bloch 220 on the afternoon of May 14. Once there more surprises awaited us - the aircraft were not ready for a variety of reasons..(...) ..during the spring of 1940 GC I/3 in Cannes had been tasked with operational testing of the D.520. This 'expérimentation opérationelle' had established a listing of no fewer than 132 changes that would have to be made to production machines before they were suitable for service. Obviously this had an impact on the rate of production of the aircraft. More seriously however, the CGT (communist trade union at the Toulouse factory) had received an order from the PCF (French communist party) to 'go-slow' on the production of the D.520 as a direct result of the German-Soviet non-aggression pact. The airfield at Francazal was literally awash with aircraft that we couldn't use while our pilots continued to die at the controls of their Ms 406s...our five pilots finally returned with their aircraft ten days later on the 24th.."
and on the Bf 110 (from a forthcoming article 'Sharks in the Blitzkrieg' - ZG 76 over France)
"...The Bf 110 was a heavy fighter designed for bomber escort and ground strafing. During the period May-June 1940, it largely lived up to its promises, successfully attacking troop and tank columns, rail convoys and troop concentrations while providing effective protection for He 111 and Do 17 bomber formations. In addition, even if swirling dogfights were not their speciality, even if they did not return the eighty-eight victories claimed, the aviators of the Stab and II./ZG 76 shot down at least thirty-eight RAF and Armée de l'Air aircraft (maybe forty - 'claim inflation' of around 100% was common during the campaign in the west). For all this, the 'Sharks' and the Stab of ZG 76 lost eleven Bf 110s and twelve airmen (three POWs were released after the fall of France) ...
and on the H-75 (French P-36)
" ... the H-75 may have been the plane of the French aces but it was also the plane of defeat....it could not hunt, but when hunted it could bite back..." (French author Persyn on the H-75)
French aviation blogger "Drix" is more scathing about the "Curtiss", as the French usually refer to the H-75;
" the qualities of the Curtiss have been largely overestimated - it achieved what it achieved thanks the high quality of the French aces that flew it.."
VG 33 looks good on paper but I'm not sure how that would translate in the field, it was more of an experimental 'light fighter' design.
The VG-30 was re-powered by a H-S Xcrs engine of 27 liters and was a V-12 liquid cooled engine, This engine was 380kg (?) but needs a radiator and coolant. Engine may have given 670hp for take-off and 690hp at 4,000meters. Performance was still not what they wanted.
The VG-31 got a H-S Y-31 of 860hp.
The VG-32 got an Allison V-1710
The VG-33 got the same H-S Y-31 of 36 liters, weight 470-490kg (plus coolant and radiator) had 860hp for T-O and 830hp at 3250 meters.
Size of VG.33 was very close to the Yak-3 - yes, not much of capacity to stretch it, bu it does not need to have it, with Germany just across the border. Main problem of the VG.33 was that it was too late?
The French have got several things going against them.
The Russians had light weight guns which gave them more fire power per KG of installed weight.
The Russians had slightly larger airframes to do the larger jobs, like fighter bomber with a pair of 100kg bombs?
The French could fit more powerful H-S engines but I don't know how soon that tops out. The H-S Y-51 maybe as far as that goes?
do we have the performance for a fully combat capable VG.33 or is it a prototype?
Several photos seem to be missing radio antennas for instance?