Worst mass produced, monoplane, single-engine, single-seat, retractable undercarriage fighter of WW2?

[Schweik]

I wonder which the FAA rejected faster, the Bermuda or Chesapeake. The latter might have been useful in Malaya with the RAF as a CAS bomber.

The Chesapeake was the better of the two, being marginally functional vs. a complete non-starter like the Bermuda. Vindicators (Chesapeake) were actually used at Midway, though it's unclear if they got any hits.

 

[Vincenzo]

I've two candidate the MS.406 and the G.50, maybe also the I-16 but it worked fine in Spain and in the Soviet-Japanese clash of '39

 

[Schweik]

Though they took apaaling losses, there are also a significant number of Soviet Aces who made Ace fighting against the Germans in the I-16. It was obsolescent and difficult to fly but I think in the hands of a good pilot it could do surprisingly well. Against a BF 109E or a Bf 110 it wasn't such a bad match on paper, though it was really in trouble against a 109F. Still probably better than the B-229 or Hawk 75 that the Finns liked so much. The I-16 had similar performance and maneuverability but was much more heavily armed and had armor and self-sealing fuel tanks.

The bigger problems with the VVS early on was with pilot training, tactics and lack of radios. Their biggest problem with their fighters was more an issue of build quality.

Compared to the newer generation of fighters, MiG 3, LaGG 3, and Yak-1, the I-16s were also being built to a better quality standard for the most part, as the factories making them were not as new and the workers a bit more experienced. They had already been making them for 7 years by the time the war started. It was at least a year before build quality of the newer fighter designs began to catch up.

 

[Schweik]

I wonder if they could have 'fixed' the I-16 by just stretching it out about three feet and maybe putting an enclosed cockpit.

 

[ssnider]

I wonder if they could have 'fixed' the I-16 by just stretching it out about three feet and maybe putting an enclosed cockpit.

That would be the I-180. canceled in prototype stage and factory used to make the lagg-3

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Chesapeake was the better of the two, being marginally functional vs. a complete non-starter like the Bermuda. Vindicators (Chesapeake) were actually used at Midway, though it's unclear if they got any hits.

TSR biplanes and retrofitted Fulmars aside, I suppose, after the Skua was removed, any decently competent monoplane, retractable undercarriage dive-bomber would have been welcome on RN carriers.

 

[Schweik]

One of the big "what if's" of the War I gather. Polikarpov fell out of favor with Uncle Joe.

 

[Schweik]

TSR biplanes and retrofitted Fulmars aside, I suppose, after the Skua was removed, any decently competent monoplane, retractable undercarriage dive-bomber would have been welcome on RN carriers.

Doesn't seem lke RN got a lot of SBD's, do you know why? Maybe they thought their range was too short...? Those were the by far the most effective early war navy strike planes.

 

[buffnut453]

Still probably better than the B-229 or Hawk 75 that the Finns liked so much. The I-16 had similar performance and maneuverability but was much more heavily armed and had armor and self-sealing fuel tanks.

Experience over Finland would suggest not. The most common kills by Finnish pilots, in descending order, were the SB-2, DB-3, I-16 and I-153. Seems like the I-16 suffered rather badly at the hands of the B-239 and H-75 flown by the Finns.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Doesn't seem lke RN got a lot of SBD's, do you know why? Maybe they thought their range was too short...? Those were the by far the most effective early war navy strike planes.

I think the small CAG needed multipurpose types, so Stringbags and Applecores that could partially dive bomb and also carry a torpedo was deemed best.

 

[Shortround6]

SBDs didn't have folding wings.

I-16s came with a variety of armaments and many had just four 7.62mm guns.

The versions with a 20mm in each wing were not that common and the some of the last I-16s built used /a synchronized 12.7 in the fuselage with a pair of 7.62mm's.
The earlier 20mm gunships used against the Japanese were effective but the Japanese planes in use at the time did not need 20mm guns to destroy them and the extra weight affected the speed and maneuverability.

I-16s were noted for being rather poor gun platforms, they snaked in flight.

 

[tyrodtom]

The 4 gun I-16 was armed with ShKAS's , 1800 rpm per gun, for 7200 rpm for the 4 guns.

Not far from the 9600 rpm of a 8 gun Hurricane or Spitfire .

 

[Shortround6]

The synchronized guns in the fuselage were bit slower. But the four gun I-16 was probably comparable to a six gun Hawk 75. (whose cowl guns also fired a bit slower than the wing guns).

 

[tengu1979]

Guns of the top 6 candidates:

EDIT: corrected armament of the Bloch

MiG-3 - Started out with a heavy armament of 2 x LMG and 3 x HMG, this was reduced on some aircraft to save weight to 1 x HMG and 2 x LMG or even 1 and 1, but it didn't help much.
LaGG-1/3 - Also started with heavyish armament of up to 5 machine guns, ended up with 1 x hub 20mm ShVAK hub cannon and 1 or 2 x HMG or LMG. Still fairly potent by early war standards.
MS. 406 - One hub mounted Hispano 20mm cannon (60 rounds) and two LMG
Bloch 150 / 152 - Two wing-mounted Hispano 20mm cannon (60 rounds) and two or four x LMG
Fiat G.50 - Two HMG
PZL P.11 - Two to four LMG

So of those, I would say the P.11 and G.50 were the least heavily armed, though not necessarily the worst fighters of the group. The I-16 by the way, was armed with just two LMG in the Spanish Civil War but most variants that faced the Germans had 2 x 20mm ShVAK cannon plus 2 x LMGs, all in the wings. Soviet cannon were quite good, their HMG were good, their ShKAS LMGs were superb. The Breda HMG in the Fiat were considered pretty bad, slow firing and relatively lightweight ammo for the caliber.

P-11 doestm meet criteria of retractable undercarriage and closed cockpit. As for armament P. 11a and b had only two MGs. P11c (and not really built g variant) had 4 but 2 of them were field removed to Save weight andimprove speed.

 

[SaparotRob]

Could the Boulton Paul Defiant have been made less awful by removing the turret or was the production run over when realized it stunk?

 

[SaparotRob]

... and keeping in the spirit, 2 .303 caliber wing guns instead.

 

[swampyankee]

Could the Boulton Paul Defiant have been made less awful by removing the turret or was the production run over when realized it stunk?

Removing the ton or so of turret and its drag wouldn't hurt performance, but it would still be far too much airframe for its role.

I think "turret fighter" was one of those concepts which made some sense on paper but the Defiant, like its closest US counterpart, the FM-1, was an idea which was intrinsically flawed. If anything, the Defiant was, at least, a competently designed airframe.

 

[SaparotRob]

Removing the ton or so of turret and its drag wouldn't hurt performance, but it would still be far too much airframe for its role.

I think "turret fighter" was one of those concepts which made some sense on paper but the Defiant, like its closest US counterpart, the FM-1, was an idea which was intrinsically flawed. If anything, the Defiant was, at least, a competently designed airframe.

So a simple "chopping off" a length for balance wouldn't have helped (center of gravity)? I was thinking of improving a bad plane by taking stuff out and using less critical materials.
I never knew the FM-1 was not an improvement.

 

[buffnut453]

So a simple "chopping off" a length for balance wouldn't have helped (center of gravity)? I was thinking of improving a bad plane by taking stuff out and using less critical materials.
I never knew the FM-1 was not an improvement.

The Defiant wasn't a bad plane. It was a good design that met a flawed specification.

 

[SaparotRob]

The Defiant wasn't a bad plane. It was a good design that met a flawed specification.

I think you just explained the reason for most of the awful aircraft ever built.