The F2A1's as received by the Finish had the R-1820-G5 export version engine, hydraulic prop., 3 50 cal. MG and one 38 cal. MG. The 30 cal, was replaced by a 50 cal.MD in Finland. The tail hook, life raft etc, was removed and the tail wheel replaced with a larger (and higher drag) grass field friendly one. The Finnish also added piolet armor (do not know weight) and a German made reflector gun sight. In another thread on this forum is a detailed weight break down of weights for for almost all the Brewster's except for the 239. A significant part of the weight increase for the British planes was increased ammo capacity.
Worst mass produced, monoplane, single-engine, single-seat, retractable undercarriage fighter of WW2?
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The F2A1's as received by the Finish had the R-1820-G5 export version engine, hydraulic prop., 3 50 cal. MG and one 38 cal. MG. The 30 cal, was replaced by a 50 cal.MD in Finland. The tail hook, life raft etc, was removed and the tail wheel replaced with a larger (and higher drag) grass field friendly one. The Finnish also added piolet armor (do not know weight) and a German made reflector gun sight. In another thread on this forum is a detailed weight break down of weights for for almost all the Brewster's except for the 239. A significant part of the weight increase for the British planes was increased ammo capacity.
Shortround6
Major General
Part of the difference was the later plane got a much different engine. Not all R-1820s were created equal, The 239 got a direct drive engine that gave 950-1000hp at sea level at 2200rpm and 800hp at 16,000ft. The American F2A-2 & 3s got an R-1820 that was two generations newer, had a reduction gear, and ran at 2500rpm. 1200hp at sea level, I don't have the military power at altitude but max continuous was 900hp at 14,000ft. at 2300rpm. The new engine was about 180lbs heavier. The larger propeller was 77lbs heavier. the wing and landing gear both gained weight, in part to deal with the higher gross weights.
The Foreign aircraft (French, Belgian, British, Dutch) got an the in between engine but it had a reduction gear and a larger propeller than the 239.
The Avenger is in a class by itself. Larger heavier airframe, more armor and equipped with self sealing fuel tanks which the other three planes you mention did not (or were often not equipped with such). The Blenheims were rather variable. Most of the ones in the Far East may have been MK Is? which were not built with self sealing tanks. They may have been refitted? In any case the early MK IVs may not have had self sealing tanks either but may have been refitted? The British tended to push the older planes to the far east before the shooting started.
I don't know about 1941 but in Jan 1940 the 6 Blenheim squadrons in the mid east all had MK Is and the 5 Blenheim squadrons in the far east were all MK Is. Defensive guns were either a single Lewis or K gun in the Turret?
I would be very, very leery of using jets as examples of light fighters as the technology changed so much from generation to generation.
for example the 5200lb thrust J-47 engine used in the early Sabre jets went about 2500-2550lbs.
the Bristol Orpheus engine used in the Gnat and G 91 gave around 4700-4850lbs of thrust for around 800lbs of engine weight, a lot easier to build a decent light fighter.
The J-79-GE-17 use in some F4 Phantoms went 3,850 lb for 11,905 lbf (52.96 kN) dry; 17,835 lbf (79.33 kN) with afterburner
The F100-PW-220 used in the middle F-16s went 3,234 pounds for 14,590 pounds-force (64.9 kN) military thrust, (dry) and 23,770 pounds-force (105.7 kN) with afterburner
power to weight ratios of the engines allow for more options for the aircraft designer.
1930s and WW II aircraft engines didn't show quite the same jumps in in power to weight, Merlin being somewhat of an exception but that was also due to the changes in fuel.
At any give point in time the power to weight ratios of a large aircraft engine were not that far off the power to weight ratios of medium sized engines (supercharged).
Unsupercharged light aircraft engines are a different story.
Shortround6
Major General
The British (and other export) planes got R-1820-G105A engines (most used/rebuilt) that were good for 1100hp at 2350rpm in low gear. The US planes got R-1820-205A engines or the military equivalent.
the 100 series engines switched from an aluminium crankcase to a steel crankcase, the 200 series engines switched to a different lighter and stronger steel crankcase, there quite a few other differences. There were basically 3 different propellers used on the Buffalo, a 9ft 0 in Hamilton Standard on the F2A-1 and 239s, a 10ft 3in Curtiss electric using hollow steel blades on the later american aircraft, a 10ft 1in Hamilton Standard used on the 339E. The 339B and 339D got 10ft 3in Curtiss Electrics with aluminum blades.
The bottom line though is that the extra weight accumulated overloaded the airframe and pushed the fat little Buffalo, which certainly wasn't a bad design by early war standards, past the tipping point.
Great ASW aircraft. Somewhat questionable as a torpedo bomber IMO but adequate for the job in terms of outcomes (by the time the torpedoes were working they were able to sink a lot of Japanese ships with TBF / TBMs, albeit with heavy fighter escorts) but it was a very big and not very agile aircraft, a big target and not that well defended. I don't necessarily think it was a piece of cake for a Nate to take out but I daresay not impossible. Certainly lightly armed Ki-43s shot some down.
All of the Blenheims proved to be tragically vulnerable in operations in Burma and the MTO. Though it was not risk-free I think Ki-27s could and in fact probably did shoot them down and they similarly could cope with most Allied recon aircraft, and the other bombers I mentioned like the Devastator, Swordfish etc. I also think a Ki-27 could give a Fulmar a hard time.
It's certainly a different kind of balance. The big tradeoff with the early jets was endurance. Some of those planes I mentioned like Mirage III and MiG-21 had flight times of considerably less than an hour in their early incarnations. But I agree with you there is a lot to consider - subsonic / transonic jets, supersonic, mach II jets, Mach II all-weather, the various fighter generations all have a different balance.
The V-1710 went from around 1,000 hp to about 1,500 hp, 1,600 if you count the turbocharged -111 / -113 on the P-38. The DB 600 series also went through quite an evolution without adding too much weight. But you are certainly right this isn't comparable to jet engines.
Shortround6
Major General
In reverse,
The engines in the P-38 gained about 300lbs in turbos and intercoolers and ducting over the early Allison's. They also required 100/130 fuel which the early Allison's didn't have. The first does affect the power to weight ratio while the 2nd affects timing. If you are designing a light fighter in 1939 for instance what possible engines are available/promised at what power to weight ratios? The most powerful engines will tend to have the best power to weight ratios. Leaving the light fighter with it's 2nd rate engine already behind the curve.
With jets staying in in service much longer it is quite possible to have planes of several generations in service at the same time. A light fighter several generations newer than old heavy fighter can be a viable option.
The Blenheim evolved, somewhat, Nates against MK Is with single K gun in the turret and no self sealing tanks or armor may very well be very successful. Against Blenheims with protected tanks and dual guns in turret the Nates kill rate may go down. Armor for pilot and gunner and twin Brownings in the turret make things even more difficult. The turret gunner has 50% more firepower than the Nate. Granted the Nate is a smaller target. Same against Hudsons, the Nate may be able to shoot them down but the success rate is not going to be as good as a fighter with more speed and heavier armament.
Does a Ki 43 cost twice as much as a Ki 27? Does it use twice as much fuel? Does it require twice the ground crew?
In the BoB the British fighters often had 8 times the firepower of the defending bombers, the bombers often having only a single gun pointing in a given direction. it didn't guarantee success every intercept but in a long campaign the law of averages was on the fighters side.
In war you often have to use what you have, not what you wish you had, but deliberately picking inferior equipment because it is cheap is a very risky gamble and first cost is not a very good indicator of actual cost effectiveness over a period of time.
The engines in the P-38 gained about 300lbs in turbos and intercoolers and ducting over the early Allison's. They also required 100/130 fuel which the early Allison's didn't have. The first does affect the power to weight ratio while the 2nd affects timing. If you are designing a light fighter in 1939 for instance what possible engines are available/promised at what power to weight ratios? The most powerful engines will tend to have the best power to weight ratios. Leaving the light fighter with it's 2nd rate engine already behind the curve.
With jets staying in in service much longer it is quite possible to have planes of several generations in service at the same time. A light fighter several generations newer than old heavy fighter can be a viable option.
The Blenheim evolved, somewhat, Nates against MK Is with single K gun in the turret and no self sealing tanks or armor may very well be very successful. Against Blenheims with protected tanks and dual guns in turret the Nates kill rate may go down. Armor for pilot and gunner and twin Brownings in the turret make things even more difficult. The turret gunner has 50% more firepower than the Nate. Granted the Nate is a smaller target. Same against Hudsons, the Nate may be able to shoot them down but the success rate is not going to be as good as a fighter with more speed and heavier armament.
Does a Ki 43 cost twice as much as a Ki 27? Does it use twice as much fuel? Does it require twice the ground crew?
In the BoB the British fighters often had 8 times the firepower of the defending bombers, the bombers often having only a single gun pointing in a given direction. it didn't guarantee success every intercept but in a long campaign the law of averages was on the fighters side.
In war you often have to use what you have, not what you wish you had, but deliberately picking inferior equipment because it is cheap is a very risky gamble and first cost is not a very good indicator of actual cost effectiveness over a period of time.
One of the factors is that fighters which started out expensive got a lot cheaper to make over time, so that planners were faced with the dilemma of keeping the older aircraft in production or investing more in the new one in the hopes that it pans out. Sometimes that gamble doesn't deliver like with the Typhoon, - which is why they kept making Hurricanes, basically (and after around 1942, those didn't work out so great either).
The Ki-27 wasn't good enough to keep making them in say 1942, but at that point, the Ki-43 was more expensive, so they kept some Ki-27s around. When the Ki-43 first came out it was a pretty advanced and sophisticated design, in some ways a better design than the Zero, though it had a few significant kinks to work out. By say, 1943 the Ki-43 is fading fast in terms of front line utility, but it can still be effective in the hands of a good pilot - it's certainly deadly against lighter bombers including SBDs and their Army equivalent, and basically any Carrier bomber, certainly Blenheims, and they could dominate Hurricanes, and pose a serious threat to Wildcats and P-40s. In contrast, newer fighters like the Ki-44 and especially the Ki-61 while more promising, were a nightmare to maintain in the field and couldn't live up to their promise. So that's why they kept making Ki-43s.
So I would say that dilemma does make it easier to use an existing fighter in this niche. The amount of time it takes from design to deployment makes timing a slightly sub-par fighter very tricky. But I do think it was possible to make a fighter with two heavy nose guns and say an R-1830 or even a Hispano 12-Y variant that could be useful as a point defense interceptor.
Hudson's were another of those planes, not a fighter but as a sort of general utility / patrol / navigation aircraft, that seemed to continue to have a lot of value and do relatively well in combat long after you would expect it to be able to. It seems to be a combination of toughness, good handling, maneuverability and reasonably good armament (including some forward firing guns). That's why they were still making them in 1943, which is a good run for what amounted to a pre-war light civil transport aircraft hastily modified for war.
The continued manufacture and widespread deployment of the Spit V makes a lot more sense in this context (to me). As does the FM-2 though it's a bit too heavy to qualify in terms of weight, from a cost and 'utility on small aircraft carrier' perspective, it makes a lot of sense. A Spit V may not be state of the art in 1943 but it's a very nice point defense fighter (especially with the various incremental improvements they got).
I think it's interesting to consider the Bf 109 from this perspective as well. In the 1930s it was certainly state of the art as a fighter, perhaps the most advanced in the world. In the BoB the short range was revealed as a significant design limitaton - the Bf 109 looks more like a short range interceptor and 'frontal aviation' fighter, but it's not really working out in the escort role. The need for a heavier or longer ranged fighter was apparent, this became the Fw 190 arguably, but it too lacked long range capability. By the mid war, say 1942, the Bf 109 was still very good but it's small size and limited operational range were beginning to cause significant headaches for the Germans, notably in the MED. The British were able to protect their convoys with Sea Gladiators and Sea Hurricanes, but if the Germans had an effective fighter - as good as a Fw 190 or Bf 109 but with the range of a P-38 or P-51, they would not have been able to. If they had something like that in 1942 they would have probably kept control of North Africa and taken Malta.
The Soviets saw a similar limitation with their fighters and managed to eventually produce the long range version of the Yak-9, albeit at some difficulty.
The Ki-27 wasn't good enough to keep making them in say 1942, but at that point, the Ki-43 was more expensive, so they kept some Ki-27s around. When the Ki-43 first came out it was a pretty advanced and sophisticated design, in some ways a better design than the Zero, though it had a few significant kinks to work out. By say, 1943 the Ki-43 is fading fast in terms of front line utility, but it can still be effective in the hands of a good pilot - it's certainly deadly against lighter bombers including SBDs and their Army equivalent, and basically any Carrier bomber, certainly Blenheims, and they could dominate Hurricanes, and pose a serious threat to Wildcats and P-40s. In contrast, newer fighters like the Ki-44 and especially the Ki-61 while more promising, were a nightmare to maintain in the field and couldn't live up to their promise. So that's why they kept making Ki-43s.
So I would say that dilemma does make it easier to use an existing fighter in this niche. The amount of time it takes from design to deployment makes timing a slightly sub-par fighter very tricky. But I do think it was possible to make a fighter with two heavy nose guns and say an R-1830 or even a Hispano 12-Y variant that could be useful as a point defense interceptor.
Hudson's were another of those planes, not a fighter but as a sort of general utility / patrol / navigation aircraft, that seemed to continue to have a lot of value and do relatively well in combat long after you would expect it to be able to. It seems to be a combination of toughness, good handling, maneuverability and reasonably good armament (including some forward firing guns). That's why they were still making them in 1943, which is a good run for what amounted to a pre-war light civil transport aircraft hastily modified for war.
The continued manufacture and widespread deployment of the Spit V makes a lot more sense in this context (to me). As does the FM-2 though it's a bit too heavy to qualify in terms of weight, from a cost and 'utility on small aircraft carrier' perspective, it makes a lot of sense. A Spit V may not be state of the art in 1943 but it's a very nice point defense fighter (especially with the various incremental improvements they got).
I think it's interesting to consider the Bf 109 from this perspective as well. In the 1930s it was certainly state of the art as a fighter, perhaps the most advanced in the world. In the BoB the short range was revealed as a significant design limitaton - the Bf 109 looks more like a short range interceptor and 'frontal aviation' fighter, but it's not really working out in the escort role. The need for a heavier or longer ranged fighter was apparent, this became the Fw 190 arguably, but it too lacked long range capability. By the mid war, say 1942, the Bf 109 was still very good but it's small size and limited operational range were beginning to cause significant headaches for the Germans, notably in the MED. The British were able to protect their convoys with Sea Gladiators and Sea Hurricanes, but if the Germans had an effective fighter - as good as a Fw 190 or Bf 109 but with the range of a P-38 or P-51, they would not have been able to. If they had something like that in 1942 they would have probably kept control of North Africa and taken Malta.
The Soviets saw a similar limitation with their fighters and managed to eventually produce the long range version of the Yak-9, albeit at some difficulty.
Shortround6
Major General
A good part of the reason the fighters grew in weight was that the larger, more expensive fighters were more often not, more capable.
Compare the Ki 43 to the P-40E. With a good pilot in the Ki 43 and a not so good (or experienced) pilot in the P-40E the Ki 43 can give a good account oF itself.
However if we consider the Ki 43 to carry a pair of 12.7mm guns with 250rpg (500 rounds total) and the P-40E to carry six .50 cal guns with 235rpg (1410 rounds total) or 312 rounds for the No 1 gun, 290 rounds for the No 2 gun and 240 rounds for the No 3 gun in each wing (1686 rounds total) we can see that the P-40E has 3 times the potential to do damage.
Yes you do have to get into firing position in order to use the armament but targets aside from fighters include bombers. transports, recon aircraft and flying boats/seaplanes. Not to mention strafing ground targets or small boats/not so small boats.
If you are operating thousands of miles from home having a more expensive fighter that is more effective may be a huge advantage because you don't need as many to have the same target effect, you don't need as many pilots and you don't need anywhere near the same number of ground crew.
However you still need competitive performance or at least one or two tricks the enemy cannot match.
A heavy fighter that doesn't have high speed, or the ability to turn or the ability to climb or to dive or turn is in trouble.
But it doesn't need to be better in all categories, just a few even it it it just to break off combat.
Compare the Ki 43 to the P-40E. With a good pilot in the Ki 43 and a not so good (or experienced) pilot in the P-40E the Ki 43 can give a good account oF itself.
However if we consider the Ki 43 to carry a pair of 12.7mm guns with 250rpg (500 rounds total) and the P-40E to carry six .50 cal guns with 235rpg (1410 rounds total) or 312 rounds for the No 1 gun, 290 rounds for the No 2 gun and 240 rounds for the No 3 gun in each wing (1686 rounds total) we can see that the P-40E has 3 times the potential to do damage.
Yes you do have to get into firing position in order to use the armament but targets aside from fighters include bombers. transports, recon aircraft and flying boats/seaplanes. Not to mention strafing ground targets or small boats/not so small boats.
If you are operating thousands of miles from home having a more expensive fighter that is more effective may be a huge advantage because you don't need as many to have the same target effect, you don't need as many pilots and you don't need anywhere near the same number of ground crew.
However you still need competitive performance or at least one or two tricks the enemy cannot match.
A heavy fighter that doesn't have high speed, or the ability to turn or the ability to climb or to dive or turn is in trouble.
But it doesn't need to be better in all categories, just a few even it it it just to break off combat.
Rudolf Opitz agreed with Eric Browns assessment of other flying wing type aircraft in that they were "Killers". Mr. Opitz also flew a number of the Horten Wings, as well as the Lippisch and others, saying they tended to be touchy at the controls and were not really meant to be flown by low time pilots. They were very unforgiving in flight. While the 163 could not be flown towards the edges of it's envelope by inexperienced pilots, it was docile enough within it's low and mid end regime to be flown by pilots with low time. Mr. Opitz said that if a pilot tried to perform a stall with the 163, instead of needing to recover from the stall, the 163 would nose up and assume a "very high sink rate".
pops-paolo
I will love England forever despite Euro 2020!
italians? no
pops-paolo
I will love England forever despite Euro 2020!
i was about to say i-16 its a vintage from the Spanish civil war
pops-paolo
I will love England forever despite Euro 2020!
bro the cr.32/42 didn't have retractable landing gear so doesn't count
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
YES!!! The G.50, C.200 RE.2000 were not going to win any major air campaigns, especially the RE.2000. Please accept the fact that the Italians didn't always build great products or deploy their good ones effectively!!! I think you're letting ethnic pride along with a little lack of knowledge distort some of your comments, and BTW I'm part Italian!
It also served in WW2 with many VVS squadrons.
pops-paolo
I will love England forever despite Euro 2020!
bro re 2000 was good for early radial engine fighters but too late and the c.200 was pretty good the g.50 was meh to maybe not that good
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
By the time they were in service and deployed they were already obsolete and better Italian aircraft like the 202, 205 and RE.2005 weren't available in numbers to make a difference.
When evaluating the Italian Air service it might help to remember that while the their doctrine on Bombing and air delivered torpedo's was very good, Italy simply did not have the economic resources to develop first rate aircraft. Where the fighter arm is concerned, like the Japanese, they still believed in the concept of having and maintaining superior dogfighting characteristics which is why they were still using biplanes such as the CR-32 and CR-42. They were superb, agile and sturdy fighters that packed a serious punch for their era, but biplanes non the less and the era of dogfighting was pretty much passe by that time.
It seemed like the only thing the Italians were missing was engines, and many countries (including the US, Japan, and the USSR) struggled with that to some extent or another. Very high performance engines were a real challenge in WW2 aviation. Only really the UK and Germany created truly great in-line engines on their own, with perhaps whoever you want to credit for the Hispano-Suiza 12Y (Switzerland, Spain, France?) maybe 2nd. The US made great radial engines, and several other nations made good ones, but those came comparatively late. The Allison was a good in-line engine but I wouldn't call it great since they never really sorted out high altitude operations.
Once you put DB 600 series engines in the Italian fighters they seemed to be pretty good, especially when you consider that Italy more or less ended military aircraft development in 1943.
On another subject, assuming that it's true the Me 163 really flew / and handled well and even had benign stall characteristics, can someone explain to me how a tail-less aircraft could be stable? How do the elevators work? I find it confusing vis a vis my crude grasp of aerodynamics.
Once you put DB 600 series engines in the Italian fighters they seemed to be pretty good, especially when you consider that Italy more or less ended military aircraft development in 1943.
On another subject, assuming that it's true the Me 163 really flew / and handled well and even had benign stall characteristics, can someone explain to me how a tail-less aircraft could be stable? How do the elevators work? I find it confusing vis a vis my crude grasp of aerodynamics.
On another subject, assuming that it's true the Me 163 really flew / and handled well and even had benign stall characteristics, can someone explain to me how a tail-less aircraft could be stable? How do the elevators work? I find it confusing vis a vis my crude grasp of aerodynamics.[/QUOTE]
As Mssrs. Eric Brown and Rudolf Opitz said, with the exception of the 163 all other flying wing designs up to that time were "killers". Both pilots spoke of the high sink rate that occurred instead of a stall when the 163 wing exceeded critical angle of attack and it must be remembered that although not a true stall, the 'sink' could cause harm. Mr. Heini Dittmar, the first test pilot for the 163 program came in for a landing when the airplane lost flying speed while still about twelve feet above the ground. The machine pancaked and, as luck would have it, Mr. Dittmar was also testing out a new cockpit seat that had a modified shock absorption system. While the seat did absorb some of the shock, enough was left to be transmitted to Mr. Dittmar causing spinal damage to put him in hospital for two years. The 163 had permanent slots just aft of the outer wing leading edges that, while giving a 2.5% increase in overall drag, prevented the aircraft from spinning. When a pilot cross controlled to cause it to spin the 163 would merely side slip. The 163 used Elevons acting as combined aileron and elevators outboard with flaps inboard for controlling glide angle on landing. Dr. Lippisch through the combination of a carefully chosen and modified airfoil, wing washout and design that emphasized stability through careful design of the Center of Lift (CL) and Center of Gravity (CG) regimes was able to create a flying wing type aircraft that was safe and reliable as far as it's aerodynamic properties were concerned. "Top Secret Bird" is the title of a book printed by Pictorial Histories Publishing Co. and authored by Wolfgang Spate who was the commander of the test unit tasked with preparing the 163 for use by the Luftwaffe and gives an in depth history on it. Another book available is "Warplanes of the Third Reich" by William Green, printed by Doubleday Co. which has an excellent section on the 163.
As Mssrs. Eric Brown and Rudolf Opitz said, with the exception of the 163 all other flying wing designs up to that time were "killers". Both pilots spoke of the high sink rate that occurred instead of a stall when the 163 wing exceeded critical angle of attack and it must be remembered that although not a true stall, the 'sink' could cause harm. Mr. Heini Dittmar, the first test pilot for the 163 program came in for a landing when the airplane lost flying speed while still about twelve feet above the ground. The machine pancaked and, as luck would have it, Mr. Dittmar was also testing out a new cockpit seat that had a modified shock absorption system. While the seat did absorb some of the shock, enough was left to be transmitted to Mr. Dittmar causing spinal damage to put him in hospital for two years. The 163 had permanent slots just aft of the outer wing leading edges that, while giving a 2.5% increase in overall drag, prevented the aircraft from spinning. When a pilot cross controlled to cause it to spin the 163 would merely side slip. The 163 used Elevons acting as combined aileron and elevators outboard with flaps inboard for controlling glide angle on landing. Dr. Lippisch through the combination of a carefully chosen and modified airfoil, wing washout and design that emphasized stability through careful design of the Center of Lift (CL) and Center of Gravity (CG) regimes was able to create a flying wing type aircraft that was safe and reliable as far as it's aerodynamic properties were concerned. "Top Secret Bird" is the title of a book printed by Pictorial Histories Publishing Co. and authored by Wolfgang Spate who was the commander of the test unit tasked with preparing the 163 for use by the Luftwaffe and gives an in depth history on it. Another book available is "Warplanes of the Third Reich" by William Green, printed by Doubleday Co. which has an excellent section on the 163.
While Fiat G.50 was not a great fighter it was not a hopeless one either. It was strong and could be dived to very high speeds. One of my distant relatives achieved 5+ kills with it (and I mean kills verifiable from Soviet docus), he had more kill claims while flying in G.50s that were accepted by the Finnish AF. And he achieved kills in other fighters too.
Ps. Finnish fighter pilots universally liked its flight characteristic, controls were light and effective, ailerons remained light even at high speeds. But it suffered from its rather poor power/weight ratio.
Ps. Finnish fighter pilots universally liked its flight characteristic, controls were light and effective, ailerons remained light even at high speeds. But it suffered from its rather poor power/weight ratio.
Last edited:
With the Finns in particular, but also in many other Theaters as we know, an aircraft which seems to be a 'dog' in one place works out to be quite effective in another. I think the Finns rated the G.50 pretty well.
There seems to be a threshold above which, with the right adaptations and in the right Theater, many marginal aircraft could succeed. The Finns own VL Myrsky fighter did not seem to make the cut, though more to do with the materials they were forced to use ('ersatz glue') than design issues.
There seems to be a threshold above which, with the right adaptations and in the right Theater, many marginal aircraft could succeed. The Finns own VL Myrsky fighter did not seem to make the cut, though more to do with the materials they were forced to use ('ersatz glue') than design issues.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
