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

Schweik · Jun 15, 2020

During the first year or so of their manufacture, the later Gen Soviet fighters, LaGG-3, Yak-1, Yak 7 etc. were often flown with the canopy off because they were known to get stuck in flight and pilots were scared of being trapped inside in the event of their aircraft being heavily damaged or suffering engine failure. This cost something like 100 kph in speed so needless to say, it was a 'drag'...

NICKVB · Jun 16, 2020

Admiral Beez said:
Which is the worst mass produced (>500 units), monoplane, single-engine, single-seat, retractable undercarriage fighter of WW2? By "mass" produced I'm setting a limit of at least 500 units, so no Vultee Vanguards and its <150 units. The Buffalo stands out, but the Finns did very well with theirs.

The real worst - however it did not make it in really large quantities due to the German invasion of France - has to be the Caudron C.714. The Finnish Ilmavuoimat received some and gave up on them, sos did the Polish suadrons that were given tho them in France after the invasion of Poland.

Admiral Beez · Jun 16, 2020

NICKVB said:
The real worst - however it did not make it in really large quantities due to the German invasion of France - has to be the Caudron C.714. The Finnish Ilmavuoimat received some and gave up on them, sos did the Polish suadrons that were given tho them in France after the invasion of Poland.

I challenge the utility of the light fighter concept. You might be able to avoid using strategic metals, etc... but scrimping on fighter aircraft during peacetime rearmament in a leading (albeit reduced after WW1 and the depression) industrial power like France is not the place to look for such savings. You still need the armament, engine, production capacity and that most important component, the pilot to make the light fighter work. Instead of making 100 Caudrons force the factory to make 25-50 D.520s or anything else that's competitive.

swampyankee · Jun 16, 2020

A two-seat version of the C.714 would make a great advanced trainer.

The entire light-weight fighter concept of the 1930s was flawed, as the LWF couldn't be that much smaller than a normal-weight fighter -- you still have to fit a sitting pilot, for one thing -- and the savings from a small engine tends to preclude the performance needed to perform its missions. I know that the F-16 and F-17/F-18 were called "light-weight" fighters, but that was only in comparison with the F-14/F-15, which were definite heavyweights.

Schweik · Jun 16, 2020

There seems to be a sweet spot that nobody pulled off during wartime for purpose-built 'light interceptors', the Caudron and the CW 21 were both failed efforts basically. But there were several other examples that kind of fit into that niche and were quite successful. Lets not forget, the Mosquito was designed to be a 'lightweight' bomber made of wood to save on strategic materials like duralumin which worked out fantastically as both a bomber and a fighter (and a recon, maritime patrol, intruder, and in many other roles). Many of the Soviet fighters were basically made along these same lines (lightweight due to relatively weak engines, using wood to save on aluminum and other strategic materials) and while they really struggled on both the design and (particularly) manufacturing level in the early war, the Yak series certainly turned out to be quite successful by the end, in fact the lightest (I think ?) version, the Yak 3, was widely considered one of the best fighters of the war, though at roughly 5,000 lbs they are on the limit of what would be considered a lightweight fighter by early war standards, by the later war they certainly were (compare to a P-51).

But in terms of weight you can get a lot closer to those two famous designs and find some successful examples. I think you could make a case for some of the biplanes like the Gladiator, I-153 and CR 42 being held over for production, (as well as the monoplane I-16) as being at least somewhat effective 'light fighters' - the Gladiator in particular worked both for point defense (as in Malta) and as a carrier aircraft. In the Pacific you have the Ki-27 "Nate" and the A5M4 which are actually lighter weight than the aforementioned 'light fighters' and were really quite successful, and helpful to have in the inventory, at least for a while. The Ki-27 in particular proved quite deadly against Allied aircraft, it wasn't until P-40s showed up that they started taking unacceptably heavy losses, but they were still being used here and there into 1944. Same could be said for the CR 42 and even the CR 32 in the early days of the fighting in North Africa and elsewhere around the Med. They did some effective work with those fighters.

There was another niche for obsolescent but lightweight aircraft being held over for mainly point defense and sometimes CAS duties, and these include the I-153 and I-16 which were both notoriously outgunned in Russia but as has been pointed out, they did still have some value. The Curtiss Hawk family of fighters was used with some success in places like India and Burma, until quite late in the war. The Axis made similar use of the French D.520 fighter, the Italians and Bulgarians both made some effective use of it mainly for point defense - the Bulgarian D.520 pilots even claimed some B-24s and a couple of P-38s during raids in 1943 and 1944. Compared to a P-38 a D.520 does qualify as a light point defense fighter I'd say. They seemed pretty effective until the bomber raids were escorted by P-51s. Another kind of similar example to the D.520 is the Romanian IAR.80, a nice looking low-wing monoplane developed via circuitous paths from the Polish P.11. They had some success as point defense fighters in raids by B-24s and P-38s, claiming several victories and helping to smash up a couple of those ill-fated Ploesti missions.

Finally there are also the float plane fighters, which act as tertiary battle area point defense fighters, a good example being the F1M 'Pete' which played a useful role in a few engagements, in spite of it's short range. It was basically a point defense against recon planes and unescorted bombers.

Most of these couldn't quite compete against the top level enemy fighter opposition, but as we know in many battle areas of the war either due to range or limited numbers, those were not always available. In those kind of remote or tertiary / secondary battlefield areas a light fighter did seem pretty viable, and some like the Ki-27 punched far above their weight I'd say. Even the Ki-43 qualified as a 'light fighter' by European or American standards, and yet look how many Allied planes they shot down with it. In modern times, sometimes the 'interim' or 'light' fighter designs work out to be fantastic successes compared to a lot of heavier boondogles which never worked out but racked up design and production costs to a dangerous extent. Aside from the wildly successful F-16 (compare that to say, the F-111) I think you could point to the A-4 Skyhawk perhaps, and maybe the MiG -21 and Mirage III, though I admit I don't know enough about the latter two systems design history to say for sure if they merit the category.

CW 21 Empty weight: 3,382 lb (1,534 kg)
Caudron Empty weight: 3,075 lb (1,395 kg)

Ki-27 Empty weight: 2,447 lb (1,110 kg)
A5M4 Empty weight: 2,681 lb (1,216 kg)
Gladiator Empty weight: 3,217 lb (1,459 kg)
I-153 Empty weight: 3,201 lb (1,452 kg)
I-16 Empty weight: 3,285 lb (1,490 kg)
CR 32 Empty weight: 3,208 lb (1,455 kg)
CR 42 Empty weight: 3,929 lb (1,782 kg)
Ki-43 Empty weight: 4,211 lb (1,910 kg)
F1M Empty weight: 4,251 lb (1,928 kg)
P-36 Empty weight: 4,567 lb (2,072 kg)
D.520 Empty weight: 4,680 lb (2,123 kg)
IAR.80 Empty weight: 4,850 lb (2,200 kg)

Admiral Beez · Jun 16, 2020

Schweik said:
There seems to be a sweet spot that nobody pulled off during wartime for purpose-built 'light interceptors', the Caudron and the CW 21 were both failed efforts basically. But there were several other examples that kind of fit into that niche and were quite successful. Lets not forget, the Mosquito was designed to be a 'lightweight' bomber made of wood to save on strategic materials like duralumin which worked out fantastically as both a bomber and a fighter (and a recon, maritime patrol, intruder, and in many other roles). Many of the Soviet fighters were basically made along these same lines (lightweight due to relatively weak engines, using wood to save on aluminum and other strategic materials) and while they really struggled on both the design and (particularly) manufacturing level in the early war, the Yak series certainly turned out to be quite successful by the end, in fact the lightest (I think ?) version, the Yak 3, was widely considered one of the best fighters of the war, though at roughly 5,000 lbs they are on the limit of what would be considered a lightweight fighter by early war standards, by the later war they certainly were (compare to a P-51).

But in terms of weight you can get a lot closer to those two famous designs and find some successful examples. I think you could make a case for some of the biplanes like the Gladiator, I-153 and CR 42 being held over for production, (as well as the monoplane I-16) as being at least somewhat effective 'light fighters' - the Gladiator in particular worked both for point defense (as in Malta) and as a carrier aircraft. In the Pacific you have the Ki-27 "Nate" and the A5M4 which are actually lighter weight than the aforementioned 'light fighters' and were really quite successful, and helpful to have in the inventory, at least for a while. The Ki-27 in particular proved quite deadly against Allied aircraft, it wasn't until P-40s showed up that they started taking unacceptably heavy losses, but they were still being used here and there into 1944. Same could be said for the CR 42 and even the CR 32 in the early days of the fighting in North Africa and elsewhere around the Med. They did some effective work with those fighters.

There was another niche for obsolescent but lightweight aircraft being held over for mainly point defense and sometimes CAS duties, and these include the I-153 and I-16 were notoriously outgunned in Russia but as has been pointed out, they did still have some value. The Curtiss Hawk family of fighters was used with some success in places like India and Burma, until quite late in the war. The Axis made similar use of the French D.520 fighter, the Italians and Bulgarians both made some effective use of it mainly for point defense - the Bulgarian D.520 pilots even claimed some B-24s and a couple of P-38s during raids in 1943 and 1944. Compared to a P-38 a D.520 does qualify as a light point defense fighter I'd say. They seemed pretty effective until the bomber raids were escorted by P-51s. Another kind of similar example to the D.520 is the Romanian IAR.80, a nice looking low-wing monoplane developed via circuitous paths from the Polish P.11. They had some success as point defense fighters in raids by B-24s and P-38s, claiming several victories and helping to smash up a couple of those ill-fated Ploesti raids.

Finally there are also the float plane fighters, which act as tertiary battle area point defense fighters, a good example being the F1M 'Pete' which played a useful role in a few engagements, in spite of it's short range. It was basically a point defense against recon planes and unescorted bombers.

Most of these couldn't quite compete against the top level enemy fighter opposition, but as we know in many battle areas of the war either due to range or limited numbers, those were not always available. In those kind of remote or tertiary / secondary battlefield areas a light fighter did seem pretty viable, and some like the Ki-27 punched far above their weight I'd say. Even the Ki-43 qualified as a 'light fighter' by European or American standards, and yet look how many Allied planes they shot down with it. In modern times, sometimes the 'interim' or 'light' fighter designs work out to be fantastic successes compared to a lot of heavier boondogles which never worked out but racked up design and production costs to a dangerous extent. Aside from the wildly successful F-16 (compare that to say, the F-111) I think you could point to the A-4 Skyhawk perhaps, and maybe the MiG -21 and Mirage III, though I admit I don't know enough about the latter two systems design history to say for sure if they merit the category.

CW 21 Empty weight: 3,382 lb (1,534 kg)
Caudron Empty weight: 3,075 lb (1,395 kg)

Ki-27 Empty weight: 2,447 lb (1,110 kg)
A5M4 Empty weight: 2,681 lb (1,216 kg)
Gladiator Empty weight: 3,217 lb (1,459 kg)
I-153 Empty weight: 3,201 lb (1,452 kg)
I-16 Empty weight: 3,285 lb (1,490 kg)
CR 32 Empty weight: 3,208 lb (1,455 kg)
CR 42 Empty weight: 3,929 lb (1,782 kg)
Ki-43 Empty weight: 4,211 lb (1,910 kg)
F1M Empty weight: 4,251 lb (1,928 kg)
P-36 Empty weight: 4,567 lb (2,072 kg)
D.520 Empty weight: 4,680 lb (2,123 kg)
IAR.80 Empty weight: 4,850 lb (2,200 kg)

I think cost, rather than empty weight is the better determinant of ROI.

Schweik · Jun 16, 2020

Admiral Beez said:
I think cost, rather than empty weight is the better determinant of ROI.

That is a little harder to precisely determine for each aircraft, but I daresay most of the ones on my list would qualify - even if some only because they were spoils of war or 'surplus' in the case of the Hawk 75. With the exception of the last two on my list they are also relatively cheap radial engines, which are usually cheaper and simpler to integrate into an airframe than in-line engines I think.

The biplanes all use fewer strategic materials as most have at least partly cloth covered fuselage. The I-153 and I-16 had been in production so long, cost was definitely lowered. I believe (but haven't checked) that both the Ki-27 and A5M were relatively cheap to make, with fixed landing gear etc. Certainly compared to some of the much more complex later war Japanese fighters.

P-36 / Hawk was probably pretty expensive for the French initially but it became surplus to the British (or did it, did the British have to pay the Yanks for their P-36s?), and I believe they were making some in India right ? By that time I do not think they would have been very expensive. Similarly the Ki-43 might have been kind of expensive early on but I believe the reason they continued making it was it was cheaper and more reliable than the later, theoretically more capable Japanese designs (Ki-61 etc.)

So overall, I doubt my list would change very much if you used cost as the dividing line. I was using #5,000 in weight. Cost in terms of expense of manufacturing would be one factor, but strategic materials are another big one, and on that level a #3,500 aircraft is using less material than a #7,000 lb aircraft in almost every case. I'm pretty sure a Ki-27 or CR 42 cost a lot less to make than a Fw 190.

Schweik · Jun 16, 2020

In other words, (TL : DR) I think cost overlaps pretty closely with weight in this example.

Schweik · Jun 16, 2020

Most of those planes also used relatively few guns, had little to no armor or protected fuel tanks (except later model I-16, IAR 80 and D.520) so that is also cheaper. Many had fixed undercarriage which also reduces cost.

ssnider · Jun 16, 2020

F2A1 empty wt. 3785 lb.

Schweik · Jun 16, 2020

There you go, Finnish version - a good example. No armor right?

ssnider · Jun 16, 2020

Finnish version had armor plate added

Schweik · Jun 17, 2020

Quite a "bargain" then for the weight. Amazing that the one used in the PTO was almost 2,000 lbs heavier

Schweik · Jun 17, 2020

My overall point is that there did indeed seem to be a niche for lightweight (under 5,000 lb empty) relatively cheap interceptors and maybe also CAS / "Frontal aviation" aircraft, in the early, middle and until quite late in the war. Where many front-line fighters were getting into the 7,000 - 10,000 lb range (and some up to 12,000 lbs or more), with extra souped up engines, multiple heavy guns, armor and self sealing tanks and so forth), some of these older fighters with fairly light armament, not too much armor and 1940-42 vintage engines, capable of operating at low to medium altitude, were still at least somewhat useful for both Allied and Axis air forces in many Theaters. In fact the Soviet fighters stayed pretty close to the 5,000 lb limit even after they got more powerful engines - Yak 3 was 5,172 lbs per Wikipedia, Yak 9 5,020). The Bf 109 also remained quite light, and the A6M would technically qualify as another 'light weight' fighter (at only 3,700 lbs empty for the A6M2), even though it was far more capable than most. The Spitfire through the Mk V remained under 5,000 empty, and maybe that is another reason why those were kept in production so long. Certainly useful to have some around for point defense.

When defending an airfield, an oil refinery, or operating right over the front lines, lighter cheaper fighters could be cost effective. Especially if fairly well trained pilots were available. Not all lighter weight aircraft fit the niche, but it does seem like there were more than a handful which did. So in theory something like this could have been designed to fit the niche even better, though maybe (per above) that is really what the Yak-3 and Bf 109 were.

Just another interesting angle from which to look at WW2 fighter aviation.

Schweik · Jun 17, 2020

The FM-2 version of the Wildcat is perhaps another example...

SaparotRob · Jun 17, 2020

Re: post #274.
The mention of lighter cheaper point defense fighters made me think of the Natter. Perhaps that's too extreme of an example.

Schweik · Jun 17, 2020

It's another attempt to fill that niche, same as the Me 163 and a couple of other weird experiments.

cherry blossom · Jun 17, 2020

I have been trying to understand why the MS 406 was so bad and found discussions in "The Rise and Fall of the French Air Force" by Greg Baughen The Rise and Fall of the French Air Force which suggest that the studies of how to reduce drag from radiators occurring in both Germany and Britain (where it was associated with Meredith) and leading to the superb Mustang design, completely passed by French aviation. Belatedly in 1939, it was understood that the drag could be greatly reduced and it was planned to rebuild the already existing MS 406s to MS 410 standard with exhaust stubs and a new radiator. Unfortunately, only 5 MS 410s had been produced (by conversion) before France fell.

The Finns were able to make a conversion of their MS 406s with captured Klimov M-105P engines and also utilizing the MS 410 ideas (the Germans had sent them some captured MS 410s) and, according to Wikipedia, the Mörkö-Morane were 64 km/h (40 mph; 35kn) faster than the original French version (naturally this conversion was also mostly too late for the Continuation War).

Shortround6 · Jun 17, 2020

ssnider said:
F2A1 empty wt. 3785 lb.

Schweik said:
Quite a "bargain" then for the weight. Amazing that the one used in the PTO was almost 2,000 lbs heavier

Just make sure you are comparing like to like.
Empty can mean really e-e-m-m-p-p-t-t-y-y or it can mean empty of fluids and ammo but fully equipped other wise. Sometimes called basic weight.
AHT says the Brewster 239 weighed 3744lbs empty. I won't argue over 41lbs weight, some production planes varied more than that from serial number to serial number.
However it added 443lbs of equipment, armament and crew for a two gun fighter and 585lbs of equipment, armament and crew for a four gun fighter (four guns are one .30 cal and three .50 cal guns) Empty equiped or basic weight being 4187lb and 4239lb respectively

By the way the .empty weight of the F2A-3 was 4732lbs so it was only about 1000lbs heavier empty.
And if you compare like to like to like (four guns and 110 US gallons of fuel) the 239 and the F2A-3 were about 1045lbs apart when loaded. Granted you could load the F2A-3 down more.

There are a number of reasons some countries used these "light" fighters. One was that they were already built and paid for which makes them really cheap.
Continued production becomes more dubious however.
We seem to be saying that all fighters are nearly equal in firepower for example.
While a Ki 27 might well be cheap to build based on it's weight (and the power of it's engine) it's effectiveness against certain targets can certainly be called into question.
It used two synchronized Vickers 7.7mm(.303) machine guns not too different from those used on a Sopwith Camel, rate of fire increased about 50%, or about 900rpm not accounting for the synchronization. Compare that to a Hurricane with eight guns. the Hurricane can deliver 5.3 to 6 times more bullets per second. the Ki 27 carries 1000 rounds of ammunition, the Hurricane carries around 2670.
If you are trying to shoot down twin engine bombers with any sort of protection which fighter is actually going to be cheaper? If you need 3 light fighters to get the same amount of firepower into the battle area than the "heavy" fighter then they are not cheaper. You not only have to pay for the planes but you need more pilots and more ground crew.

Schweik · Jun 17, 2020

Shortround6 said:
Just make sure you are comparing like to like.
Empty can mean really e-e-m-m-p-p-t-t-y-y or it can mean empty of fluids and ammo but fully equipped other wise. Sometimes called basic weight.
AHT says the Brewster 239 weighed 3744lbs empty. I won't argue over 41lbs weight, some production planes varied more than that from serial number to serial number.
However it added 443lbs of equipment, armament and crew for a two gun fighter and 585lbs of equipment, armament and crew for a four gun fighter (four guns are one .30 cal and three .50 cal guns) Empty equiped or basic weight being 4187lb and 4239lb respectively

It's a fair point - I really don't know how many of those weights mean "EMPTY empty" and how many include things like hydraulic fluid or whatever. So that could possible the change the list a little bit, I just pulled those from Wikipedia so they definitely could be off. The point still stands though. It's an interesting way to look at the obsolete fighters that were still used and those that continued to be manufactured - like Ki-43 or Spit V, or Hawk 75.

By the way the .empty weight of the F2A-3 was 4732lbs so it was only about 1000lbs heavier empty.
And if you compare like to like to like (four guns and 110 US gallons of fuel) the 239 and the F2A-3 were about 1045lbs apart when loaded. Granted you could load the F2A-3 down more.

That still seems like an awful lot heavier, especially if the Finnish one had armor. I'm guessing part of the difference was self sealing fuel tanks? More and bigger guns? What else accounts for 1,000 lbs? That's a lot! You'd need a significant boost in engine power to account for that.

There are a number of reasons some countries used these "light" fighters. One was that they were already built and paid for which makes them really cheap.
Continued production becomes more dubious however.
We seem to be saying that all fighters are nearly equal in firepower for example.
While a Ki 27 might well be cheap to build based on it's weight (and the power of it's engine) it's effectiveness against certain targets can certainly be called into question.
It used two synchronized Vickers 7.7mm(.303) machine guns not too different from those used on a Sopwith Camel, rate of fire increased about 50%, or about 900rpm not accounting for the synchronization. Compare that to a Hurricane with eight guns. the Hurricane can deliver 5.3 to 6 times more bullets per second. the Ki 27 carries 1000 rounds of ammunition, the Hurricane carries around 2670.

Yeah but didn't Ki-27s do pretty well against Hurricanes?

If you are trying to shoot down twin engine bombers with any sort of protection which fighter is actually going to be cheaper? If you need 3 light fighters to get the same amount of firepower into the battle area than the "heavy" fighter then they are not cheaper. You not only have to pay for the planes but you need more pilots and more ground crew.

Well, it depends on the bomber. If it's a TBD devastator or a TBF Avenger, an Albacore or Swordfish, or say, a Bristol Blenheim, then maybe a Nate is good enough. If they are sending something a bit more rugged or capable like fighter bombers, SBDs, A-20s, or B-25s then maybe if you have a bunch of 'Nates' defending your airfield then you can save your more modern fighters (Ki-43s or A6Ms) to go after the other bombers. In fact I think that is what they did sometimes.

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

Banned

Recruit

Major

Chief Master Sergeant

Banned

Major

Banned

Banned

Banned

Airman

Banned

Airman

Banned

Banned

Banned

Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII

Banned

Senior Airman

Major General

Banned

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads