Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The XP-54 was named the "Ascender".Which one was?
Some would say that those would had been the best Moranes ever.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
Exactly 100 MiG-1s were produced, 89 were deployed - is it really worth to discuss it?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.
The consensus here seems to accept even one-off prototypes.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 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.The consensus here seems to accept even one-off prototypes.
That was my objective too, see operational aircraft only.But the discussion seems to be confined to known mass-produced airplanes.
One hundred produced and 89 deployed definitely should be included.Exactly 100 MiG-1s were produced, 89 were deployed - is it really worth to discuss it?
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.One hundred produced and 89 deployed definitely should be included.
The question was never which was the worst, but instead is which aircraft were among the worst.However, personally, I would refrain from categorical assessments like " the worst ever" at all.
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.Which were the worst liquid-cooled, V12-powered, single-engine monoplane, retractable undercarriage fighters of WW2?
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.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
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.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?
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.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.