Why was P-36 so successful in the battle of France?

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

One difference between P-40 and P-51 at very high speed is that (I think?) the latter got metal control surfaces earlier? IIRC P-40s got metal ailerons late in the P-40N variant.

 

[tomo pauk]

It fixed the worst of the MS 406 problems and got it up near D 520 speeds, but the D 520 was also improving.
The 410 used four 7.5mgs in the wing and so had the same armament as the D 520.

From what I can gather, the MS.410 was still unable to do 300 mph (470 km/h speed?), making it much slower than the D.520.
Morko Morrane was closest to the initial D.520 performance due to having a far better engine than it was the HS 12Y-31.

 

[Greg Boeser]

The Morane in Finnish service had the worst performance of the four types they started the Continuation War with.
1 - Brewster B-239
2 - Curtiss H-75A
3 - Fiat G-50
4 - M.S. 406

 

[Shortround6]

From what I can gather, the MS.410 was still unable to do 300 mph (470 km/h speed?), making it much slower than the D.520.
Morko Morrane was closest to the initial D.520 performance due to having a far better engine than it was the HS 12Y-31.

The Swiss D 3801 with a 12Y-51 was supposed to do 332mph (534kph) assuming the 12Y-51 ran right. Altitude not given.
The MS 406 didn't have ejector exhaust as built. later upgraded aircraft got them (more than one kind?) which makes things harder to figure out.
How much of a later model's speed increase was due to increased propeller HP and how much was the exhaust thrust.

The 410 was in the middle of engine changes and possible exhaust manifold changes and a few other things.
You are right that the trial aircraft (?) was quite a bit slower than predicated. But they didn't have much time to figure out why.

 

[SaparotRob]

The Morane in Finnish service had the worst performance of the four types they started the Continuation War with.
1 - Brewster B-239
2 - Curtiss H-75A
3 - Fiat G-50
4 - M.S. 406

I'm sorry, which plane was #1in Finnish service during the Continuation War again?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The Swiss D 3801 with a 12Y-51 was supposed to do 332mph (534kph) assuming the 12Y-51 ran right. Altitude not given.
The MS 406 didn't have ejector exhaust as built. later upgraded aircraft got them (more than one kind?) which makes things harder to figure out.
How much of a later model's speed increase was due to increased propeller HP and how much was the exhaust thrust.

The 410 was in the middle of engine changes and possible exhaust manifold changes and a few other things.
You are right that the trial aircraft (?) was quite a bit slower than predicated. But they didn't have much time to figure out why.

The 406 had a lot of strange protrusions and this bizarre radiator that could be extended, I gather they fixed most of this stuff with the 410. Still had the same tubby little body though.

 

[tomo pauk]

The Swiss D 3801 with a 12Y-51 was supposed to do 332mph (534kph) assuming the 12Y-51 ran right. Altitude not given.
The MS 406 didn't have ejector exhaust as built. later upgraded aircraft got them (more than one kind?) which makes things harder to figure out.
How much of a later model's speed increase was due to increased propeller HP and how much was the exhaust thrust.

Problem was that D 3801 was not the MS.410, that retained the same engine as the 406.

 

[Shortround6]

The 406 had a lot of strange protrusions and this bizarre radiator that could be extended, I gather they fixed most of this stuff with the 410. Still had the same tubby little body though.

Yes, the extendable radiator was about the first thing to go.
In part because it is said that it either tended to extend on it's own or depart from the aircraft during certain flight conditions.
I don't how much it weighed when full of water but if the brackets or lifting mechanism wasn't strong enough?
Another thing that could be fixed but why? most everybody else (except Heinkel) was figuring out how to cool the engine with adjustable flaps and not moving the radiator up and down.

 

[Shortround6]

Problem was that D 3801 was not the MS.410, that retained the same engine as the 406.

True but there was a MS 411 with a 12Y-45 engine (which flew?) and they were working on the MS 412 with a 12Y-51 (which didn't) and they did manage to stuff a prototype 12Z engine into a MS airframe and call it an MS 450 and claim they flew it. How much I have no idea. They agreed the D 520 was better airframe to use the 12Y-51 engine in.


the Swiss aircraft just looks like the best case (not trying to fly with the Germans coming down the road a few days away) of figuring out what the MS 40? could have done or could not have done in mid/late 1940.

 

[Greg Boeser]

I'm sorry, which plane was #1in Finnish service during the Continuation War again?

Bf 109G

 

[elbmc1969]

Yes, the extendable radiator was about the first thing to go.
In part because it is said that it either tended to extend on it's own or depart from the aircraft during certain flight conditions.
I don't how much it weighed when full of water but if the brackets or lifting mechanism wasn't strong enough?

Where did you see this? I've never seen accounts of this in French sources or work based on the archives.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Yes, the extendable radiator was about the first thing to go.
In part because it is said that it either tended to extend on it's own or depart from the aircraft during certain flight conditions.

You made me spit my coffee out!

I don't how much it weighed when full of water but if the brackets or lifting mechanism wasn't strong enough?
Another thing that could be fixed but why? most everybody else (except Heinkel) was figuring out how to cool the engine with adjustable flaps and not moving the radiator up and down.

View attachment 673706

Part of what makes this era so interesting to me is that everyone is still experimenting. Nobody really knew in the 30s what kind of radiators would work best, could evaporative coling work? (nope). Were chin bath or wing based or belly best? They didn't know if the future was going to be bizarre Flash Gordon ships like Airacuda or Bf 110 / Potez 630 / Ki-45 heavy fighters or Boulton Paul defiant turret fighters, TB 3 with I-16 'parasite' riders.... hell in the mid 30s the US was still investing money in zepplin aircraft carriers. I cry tears that particular experiment didn't work out. The world needs zeppelin aircraft carriers.

What we learned of course was that small, sleek, and fast won the day. But there were still a lot of details to figure out with the engines, superchargers, fuel, armor, armament, communication gear etc. etc.

 

[tomo pauk]

True but there was a MS 411 with a 12Y-45 engine (which flew?) and they were working on the MS 412 with a 12Y-51 (which didn't) and they did manage to stuff a prototype 12Z engine into a MS airframe and call it an MS 450 and claim they flew it. How much I have no idea. They agreed the D 520 was better airframe to use the 12Y-51 engine in.

I'm not sure what's the problem here.
The fellow member stipulated, in post #135 here: Simply upgrading all of the MS.406 to the MS.410 standard would have made a huge difference.
To what I disagreed.

Neither MS.411 nor MS.450 are MS.410, and for good reasons.

the Swiss aircraft just looks like the best case (not trying to fly with the Germans coming down the road a few days away) of figuring out what the MS 40? could have done or could not have done in mid/late 1940.

Swiss aircraft have had a far better engine than the MS.406 or 410 had.
Talk having all Hurricanes being powered by Merlin 20 from the start of BoB, or having all P-39Ds being powered by the engines from P-39M or N during 1942 - yes, it solves most of their problems, but these improved engines were simply not there by hundreds.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

VG 39 and D.523!!

 

[GregP]

A P-38 especially, Wild Bill. Yanks Air Museum has a P-38 that has been converted with a Photo nose, but it still retains the famous dive brakes under the outer wing panels near the nacelles. Perhaps other fighters needed them, too, but simply didn't have a low enough critical Mach number to require them very often and so it didn't attract enough attention to warrant development.

Still, I wonder how many P-51 and P-47 (and others) losses were the result of an unrecoverable dive into the ground at more than critical Mach number. We will likely never know. Early Lear Jet drivers sometimes became lawn darts, too, from 51,000 feet on occasion! At that altitude, sometimes called the "Coffin Corner," they were about 2 knots above stall and about 2 knots below Mach tuck. It took very careful flying to not hit either limit!

Since your name in here if Wild Bill Kelso, I'd think your answer would be: "It don't matter, wussy, full throttle, I said! Lock and Load!"

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

A P-38 especially, Wild Bill. Yanks Air Museum has a P-38 that has been converted with a Photo nose, but it still retains the famous dive brakes under the outer wing panels near the nacelles. Perhaps other fighters needed them, too, but simply didn't have a low enough critical Mach number to require them very often and so it didn't attract enough attention to warrant development.

I think P-38s hit the compressibility problems at fairly low mach numbers IIRC

Still, I wonder how many P-51 and P-47 (and others) losses were the result of an unrecoverable dive into the ground at more than critical Mach number. We will likely never know. Early Lear Jet drivers sometimes became lawn darts, too, from 51,000 feet on occasion! At that altitude, sometimes called the "Coffin Corner," they were about 2 knots above stall and about 2 knots below Mach tuck. It took very careful flying to not hit either limit!

Since your name in here if Wild Bill Kelso, I'd think your answer would be: "It don't matter, wussy, full throttle, I said! Lock and Load!"

Yeah, nope, I'd be very cautious myself. Probably not diligent enough to fly a WW2 fighter. I've done a few hours in a Cessna 172 but that's like swimming with floaties by comparison.

I suspect you are right - a lot of WW2 fighters almost certainly ended up as lawn darts, there are even a few cases of witnesses describing this happening. Given how often US planes in particular were using power dives as an all-important escape maneuver, I'm sure it happened a lot. On the one hand, you don't want to risk locking up and going in, on the other hand somebody is chasing you shooting shells that are blowing basketball sized holes in your aircraft. Tough situation.

Of course one obvious reason is that the high G load, especially without a G suit and sitting more or less upright, would often put people unconscious. Some aircraft would more or less continue a pull out and level off, which no doubt saved a lot of lives. Some did not. With the relatively basic capabilities for testing, no supercomputers to model the airflow etc., it was all to some extent hit and miss.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I think P-38s hit the compressibility problems at fairly low mach numbers IIRC

It did - and I believe some of the recorded dive speeds during flight testing were able to be verified once the critical Mach number of the aircraft was determined and once the compressibility mystery was being solved, IIRC, this happening after Lockheed (Kelly Johnson) got NACA to do wind tunnel testing at Mach .74 (thanks to General Arnold's intervention)

Yeah, nope, I'd be very cautious myself. Probably not diligent enough to fly a WW2 fighter. I've done a few hours in a Cessna 172 but that's like swimming with floaties by comparison.

Yes and no - I know many high time pilots who killed themselves when they jumped into a low powered GA airplane and forgot about energy and power management on the lower end of performance spectrum, (you can still drown while swimming with floaties). At the same time, avoiding dangerous situations as described when flying higher performance aircraft was (and still is) all about training. By today's standards the pace of WW2 was extremely fast although the machines were obviously not as complicated.

I remember reading an interview with a P-38 pilot who participated in the Yamamoto mission (I think it was Thomas Lanphier) and he said he never had an issue with compressibility when flying the P-38, but as we know, there were many pilots, some of them combat veterans who killed themselves while flying the aircraft.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Fair point. Flying any aircraft is still pretty risky. I think with a Cessna etc., the main issues are to do with navigation, ground control communications, just making sure all the systems are working... making sure you don't run out of fuel in one tank before switching to the other, not getting confused while flying on instruments and not realizing your are descending etc. They seem to be pretty forgiving of for example, a stall, and not too hard to land or takeoff.

I've watched some of those detailed flight videos for Warbirds and there are so many more things to be cognizant of, and so many of the systems seem to be tricky to operate. Just takeoff seems like a huge list of things to stay on top of. The torque of the engine can easily flip you over during takeoff. Plus, if you stall, not all of those are so forgiving.

Considering that so many pilots were thrown in into combat with just a few weeks of 'on-type' transition training, especially in the first year or two of the war, it's no wonder so many died, it's amazing that so many rose to the occasion.

I am the sort of person who is generally pretty competent when I'm focused on the task at hand. I'm a good driver, even in a pinch so to speak. But I'm not sure I have the right kind of personality to keep track of the seemingly dozens of things you have to remain aware of in a military aircraft (not even counting looking for enemy aircraft etc.!)

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Fair point. Flying any aircraft is still pretty risky. I think with a Cessna etc., the main issues are to do with navigation, ground control communications, just making sure all the systems are working... making sure you don't run out of fuel in one tank before switching to the other, not getting confused while flying on instruments and not realizing your are descending etc. They seem to be pretty forgiving of for example, a stall, and not too hard to land or takeoff.

I've watched some of those detailed flight videos for Warbirds and there are so many more things to be cognizant of, and so many of the systems seem to be tricky to operate. Just takeoff seems like a huge list of things to stay on top of. The torque of the engine can easily flip you over during takeoff. Plus, if you stall, not all of those are so forgiving.

All this is mastered with training and religious use of checklists. A warbird will be a bit more complicated but IMO not by much - the biggest issue is flying a high performance tail dragger, but for that matter any tail dragger presents a different challenge of flying. Of course you're in a larger aircraft (which can be intimidating) and taller in the seat.

Considering that so many pilots were thrown in into combat with just a few weeks of 'on-type' transition training, especially in the first year or two of the war, it's no wonder so many died, it's amazing that so many rose to the occasion.

True, but for those who made it through their chance of survival rose greatly. On the other end, those who couldn't make the cut were washed out quickly, providing they didn;t kill themselves in the process.

I am the sort of person who is generally pretty competent when I'm focused on the task at hand. I'm a good driver, even in a pinch so to speak. But I'm not sure I have the right kind of personality to keep track of the seemingly dozens of things you have to remain aware of in a military aircraft (not even counting looking for enemy aircraft etc.!)

At least you recognize your limitations!

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

All this is mastered with training and religious use of checklists.

Definitely agree on checklists. It's similar in the medical field.

A warbird will be a bit more complicated but IMO not by much - the biggest issue is flying a high performance tail dragger, but for that matter any tail dragger presents a different challenge of flying. Of course you're in a larger aircraft (which can be intimidating) and taller in the seat.

It depends a lot on the aircraft, but I think you are underestimating a little, how many things you are dealing with in some of those WW2 fighters or bombers.

True, but for those who made it through their chance of survival rose greatly. On the other end, those who couldn't make the cut were washed out quickly, providing they didn;t kill themselves in the process.

At least you recognize your limitations!

There is a reason why they pre-select for certain types of personality traits and abilities for fighter pilots before they even get to training...