Worst liquid-cooled, V12-powered, single-engine, single-seat, monoplane, retractable undercarriage fighters of WW2?

[Greg Boeser]

The engagement was a blue on blue. The Japanese bounced the Moranes believing them to be AVG. Plus the Moranes lacked cannon.
Still the MS 406 had a lot going aginst it. Low power to weight, high wing loading, draggy even without the landing gear uplock failures.

 

[GrauGeist]

Which one was?

The XP-54 was named the "Ascender".

In true Yankee fashion, it was nick-named the "Ass Ender".

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

Had the Germans sent a squadron or two of the Morane-Saulnier M.S.406 with Barbarossa how would they have compared to the USSR's monoplane, V-12 fighters of summer 1941, namely the LaGG-1, LaGG-3, MiG-1, MiG-3 and Yak-1? I think we'd do okay against the limited production and low spec LaGG-1 and MiG-1.

View attachment 767593 View attachment 767594
View attachment 767595 View attachment 767596

Some would say that those would had been the best Moranes ever.

 

[bf109xxl]

MiG-1 gets my vote.

Dangerously unstable in flight both laterally and longitudinally, with controls that were both unbalanced and very heavy/tiring for pilots. The aircraft had center of gravity issues, which led to unpredictable stall behaviour. If it did stall, it was difficult recovery and a had a tendency flat spin (even just while climbing). The engine was insufficiently cooled and blew hot engine gas into the cockpit.The armament was prone to freezing/jamming after just a couple of rounds. Take-off runs and landing speeds were both considered unacceptably high. Once you did get on the ground, the behavior was still terrible thanks to the set back cockpit/very high nose position and small landing gear wheel.

There used to be a fabulous website that detailed its troubled development and re-birth as the (still rather troubled) MiG-3. Alas, it appears to have gone to the great internet graveyard.

At least the Yak-1 and LaGG-1 grew into something worthwhile.

Exactly 100 MiG-1s were produced, 89 were deployed - is it really worth to discuss it?
LaGG-1 was just another designation for the prototype (I-301), it _never_ reached the mass production.
Yak-1 was definitely not the worst one.
MiG-3AM-38 could have rather adequate performance, even the performance of the MiG-3AM-35 was acceptable over 5000m (if do not consider the firepower).
If you speak about the LaGG-3 you should point exactly the batch number - the difference between earlier and later batches was significant. From batch 66 onwards, the LaGG-3 had more or less acceptable performance - albeit on average worse than the contemporary Yak-1, but not so bad as to be considered useless or the worst ever.

Evaluation of the performance of Soviet aircraft is particularly difficult because poor pilot training distorted the real picture. Soviet pilots' recollections often contain highly polarized assessments, which are also often a function of training. For example, those who were able to master the MiG-3 in the pre-war period were more likely to find its characteristics quite acceptable.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Exactly 100 MiG-1s were produced, 89 were deployed - is it really worth to discuss it?
LaGG-1 was just another designation for the prototype (I-301), it _never_ reached the mass production.

The consensus here seems to accept even one-off prototypes.

 

[bf109xxl]

The consensus here seems to accept even one-off prototypes.

The Soviets alone built about a dozen prototypes (may be more), a couple of which were barely able to take off. But the discussion seems to be confined to known mass-produced airplanes.

 

[Admiral Beez]

But the discussion seems to be confined to known mass-produced airplanes.

That was my objective too, see operational aircraft only.

Exactly 100 MiG-1s were produced, 89 were deployed - is it really worth to discuss it?

One hundred produced and 89 deployed definitely should be included.

 

[bf109xxl]

One hundred produced and 89 deployed definitely should be included.

Because of the additional fuel tank, the MiG-3 was heavier than the MiG-1 and was inferior to the latter in climb rate, but had a greater range and maximum speed. However, these differences can be hardly considered as essential. In Soviet evaluations, these modifications are usually not distinguished.

 

[bf109xxl]

In addition. When the reduction gear ratio was changed on the MiG-1, it became even faster than the MiG-3, which suffered from a noticeable deterioration in manufacturing quality during the mass production. However, the MiG was far inferior in the number of design flaws and manufacturing defects to the early LaGG, which is much more suitable as a candidate for the worst V12-engined single-seat fighters than the MiG.
However, personally, I would refrain from categorical assessments like " the worst ever" at all.

 

[Admiral Beez]

However, personally, I would refrain from categorical assessments like " the worst ever" at all.

The question was never which was the worst, but instead is which aircraft were among the worst.

Which were the worst liquid-cooled, V12-powered, single-engine monoplane, retractable undercarriage fighters of WW2?

If we can consider which were the best V-12-powered single-engine fighters of WW2, we should also be able to consider which were the among the worst.

I would define the worst as being the V-12 fighters that were the least competitive in performance or capability to their immediate peers. For example, when in Dec 1938 the first Morane-Saulnier M.S.406 squadrons were receiving their aircraft, we could ask how it compares to other V-12 fighters entering service around this time; such as the Spitfire, Bf 109, Hurricane and P-40.

 

[Greg Boeser]

I think the MS 406 is competitive with the early Bf 109s with the Jumo engines, but as soon as the Bf 109E shows up, it's toast.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

For example, when in Dec 1938 the first Morane-Saulnier M.S.406 squadrons were receiving their aircraft, we could ask how it compares to other V-12 fighters entering service around this time; such as the Spitfire, Bf 109, Hurricane and P-40

The P-40 didn't enter service until 1941. In December of 1938, the only fighters, that I can think of anyway, meeting the definition would be the Bf 109C/D, Hurricane Mk.I and Spitfire Mk.I. The M.S.406 and Bf 109E were perhaps JUST rolling off the production lines in late 1938.
If all the above were included, I would definitely vote the Moraine as the lowest performing of the lot. Although the Hurricane with a 2-blade fixed pitch propeller wouldn't be far behind. Did the M.S.406 have a constant speed, or at least a variable speed prop fitted as standard at this time?

 

[cherry blossom]

The MS 406 has interesting history. One indication is that a small redesign to the MS 410 could significantly improve the performance, probably because the original radiator design was very poor (suggested by "The Rise and Fall of the French Air Force" by Greg Baughen The Rise and Fall of the French Air Force. Another is that the selection of the MS 406 was partly a question of influence rather than merit according to these blogs Nieuport 161 vs Morane 406: The match as described by 30's French reviews (Modified the 18 of November, 2023 * ***), Nieuport 161: The best contender (revised 31 / 12 / 2023) 9, Nieuport 161: 09-22-1936, the day at which France had lost the mastery of the 1940 sky (revised 01/ 05 / 2014) and Nieuport 161 and Morane 405 - Learning from planes crashes... or not... (revised 09 / 22 / 2014).

Edited to get the links working - Had to run away yesterday.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The P-40 didn't enter service until 1941.

Curses Wikipedia.

 

[Shortround6]

The P-40 entered service in June 1940 with the 33rd, 35th and 36th squadrons of the 8th fighter group at Langley Field Virginia. Sept 1940 saw 114 P-40s delivered bring the total number to 200.

Which is over 1 1/2 years from Dec 1938.

we do have be a little careful with "entered" service dates as it could sometimes take several months to get a service squadron even fully equipped let alone "operational" on a type of air aircraft. For the British Dec 1938 saw 10 Squadrons equipped with Hurricanes although only 5 were "operational". Spitfires equipped No 19 squadron and No 66 had some, Neither squadron would be declared operational until early 1939.

Wiki says ( ) first production M.S. 406 doesn't show up until Jan 29th 1939.

 

[yulzari]

The P-40 didn't enter service until 1941. In December of 1938, the only fighters, that I can think of anyway, meeting the definition would be the Bf 109C/D, Hurricane Mk.I and Spitfire Mk.I. The M.S.406 and Bf 109E were perhaps JUST rolling off the production lines in late 1938.
If all the above were included, I would definitely vote the Moraine as the lowest performing of the lot. Although the Hurricane with a 2-blade fixed pitch propeller wouldn't be far behind. Did the M.S.406 have a constant speed, or at least a variable speed prop fitted as standard at this time?

There was the odd pilot in the RAF in France who preferred the two blade fixed pitch propellor as it was a better performer within its own window. Well at least one anyway.

 

[yulzari]

The P-40 entered service in June 1940 with the 33rd, 35th and 36th squadrons of the 8th fighter group at Langley Field Virginia. Sept 1940 saw 114 P-40s delivered bring the total number to 200.

Which is over 1 1/2 years from Dec 1938.

we do have be a little careful with "entered" service dates as it could sometimes take several months to get a service squadron even fully equipped let alone "operational" on a type of air aircraft. For the British Dec 1938 saw 10 Squadrons equipped with Hurricanes although only 5 were "operational". Spitfires equipped No 19 squadron and No 66 had some, Neither squadron would be declared operational until early 1939.

Wiki says ( ) first production M.S. 406 doesn't show up until Jan 29th 1939.

The Curtis Tomahawk MkI entered operational war service with no2 Squadron RAF in August 1941 with the ex French ordered Curtis Hawk 81 replacing Westland Lysanders.