Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
I've come across a couple references to Eric Brown flying the Me 163. Here is the wikipedia text:
Captain Eric Brown RN, Chief Naval Test Pilot and commanding officer of the Captured Enemy Aircraft Flight, who tested the Me 163 at the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) at Farnborough, said, "The Me 163 was an aeroplane that you could not afford to just step into the aircraft and say 'You know, I'm going to fly it to the limit.' You had very much to familiarise yourself with it because it was state-of-the-art and the technology used."[56] Acting unofficially, after a spate of accidents involving Allied personnel flying captured German aircraft resulted in official disapproval of such flights, Brown was determined to fly a powered Komet. On around 17 May 1945, he flew an Me 163B at Husum with the help of a cooperative German ground crew, after initial towed flights in an Me 163A to familiarise himself with the handling.[citation needed]
The day before the flight, Brown and his ground crew had performed an engine run on the chosen Me 163B to ensure that everything was running correctly, the German crew being apprehensive should an accident befall Brown, until being given a disclaimer signed by him to the effect that they were acting under his orders. On the rocket-powered "scharfer-start" takeoff the next day, after dropping the takeoff dolly and retracting the skid, Brown later described the resultant climb as "like being in charge of a runaway train", the aircraft reaching 32,000 ft (9.76 km) altitude in 2 minutes, 45 seconds. During the flight, while practicing attacking passes at an imaginary bomber, he was surprised at how well the Komet accelerated in the dive with the engine shut down. When the flight was over Brown had no problems on the approach to the airfield, apart from the rather restricted view from the cockpit due to the flat angle of glide, the aircraft touching down at 200 km/h (120 mph). Once down safely, Brown and his much-relieved ground crew celebrated with a drink.[57]
Beyond Brown's unauthorised flight, the British never tested the Me 163 under power themselves; due to the danger of its hypergolic propellants it was only flown unpowered. Brown himself piloted RAE's Komet VF241 on a number of occasions, the rocket motor being replaced with test instrumentation. When interviewed for a 1990s television programme, Brown said he had flown five tailless aircraft (which did not include the pair of American Northrop X-4s) in his career (including the British de Havilland DH 108). Referring to the Komet, he said "this is the only one that had good flight characteristics"; he called the other four "killers".[58]
and this:
The aircraft was remarkably agile and docile to fly at high speed. According to Rudolf Opitz, chief test pilot of the Me 163, it could "fly circles around any other fighter of its time".
I haven't come across any comments that the Me 163 was a bad airplane to fly. My thought on what makes a good candidate for this thread have to do with the inherent risks of the power plant and fuels, the limited combat ability of the aircraft, and combat vulnerability during landing.
italians? noThe Finns liked the Brewster, and the Russians liked the P-39, both candidates that could be considered, but I'd guess that the French and Italians had something worse. This is a pretty tough topic to really quantify.
i was about to say i-16 its a vintage from the Spanish civil warSo were they bad because they had bad flying characteristics, poor maintenance characteristics or just had the unfortunate fate to be pushed into the wrong war? A lot more to consider.
bro the cr.32/42 didn't have retractable landing gear so doesn't countThere 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)
italians? no
i was about to say i-16 its a vintage from the Spanish civil war
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 goodYES!!! 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.
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.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
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.