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

[pbehn]

I guess this is where industrial advantage comes into play. With a big enough industrial base, a nation could go with both "tried and true" and go out on limb as well.

The British had the Hurricane, Spitfire, Defiant, Typhoon, Tornado and Whirlwind under development or in service when war started. Two abandoned because of engines (Vulture and Peregrine) Defiant because it didnt work. The three that were left complimented each other, Hurricane could be made quickly, Spitfire became a great aircraft, Typhoon/Tempest/Sea Fury also became good aircraft, if not exactly as planned. However as soon as war started the UK immediately realised it didnt have anything to do photo recon over enemy territory or any long range "heavy fighter" worthy of the name.

 

[SaparotRob]

I was just thinking about British aviation. You brought up several examples. I was also thinking of the Meteor, Spitfire, Whirlwind, Tempest and Typhoon. A little of both depending on the timeframe (and whichever engine worked.).

 

[pbehn]

I was just thinking about British aviation. You brought up several examples. I was also thinking of the Meteor, Spitfire, Whirlwind, Tempest and Typhoon. A little of both depending on the timeframe (and whichever engine worked.).

The Meteor was a gift to Gloster who in my opinion were pretty useless but part of a big group, A better company would have produced a better plane, and that wouldnt have been hard to do.

 

[pbehn]

The turbo prop Meteor actually looks a better plane, a complete lack of imagination in the design, it hardly looks more advanced than a Mosquito and certainly nowhere near a Hornet. It is basically a twin piston engined fighter fitted with jets. 1:72 MPM Gloster Meteor Trent 'First Turboprop Fighter' - MP72574 | Aircraft art, Wwii plane art, Gloster meteor

 

[Milosh]

The Meteor was retired in the '80s. Not bad for a useless a/c.

 

[pbehn]

The Meteor was retired in the '80s. Not bad for a useless a/c.

For the want of anything else post war. 450 pilots were killed in 890 accidents out of circa 4,000 built.

 

[Juha3]

For the want of anything else post war. 450 pilots were killed in 890 accidents out of circa 4,000 built.

That was not so bad, 50s and 60s were rather awful times for military flying safety records. "The German Air Force acquired 558 F-84s of different types, of which 202 were lost (Reis, 2012). This constitutes an attrition rate of 36.2% for the F-84, in contrast to 31.88% for the F-104 (i.e., 916 acquired and 292 lost). Moreover, Reis (2012) and Siano (2016) have pointed out that the Starfighter's annual accident rate was also slightly lower than the F-84's rate." See An HFACS Analysis of German F-104 Starfighter Accidents (purdue.edu)
Of course for reasonable analyze one should know accidents per xxxxx flying hours (usually per 100,000 flying hours).

 

[Shortround6]

Do you think the Ki-44 could have been adapted for carrier use?

Only with a new wing.

Ki-44 had a wing loading of about 38lbs per sq ft.
A F8F-2 had a wing loading of 42lbs per sq ft.

F4U-1 corsair ranged from about 35lbs per sq to to 40 lbs per sq ft clean depending on fuel load and ammo.

It was possible but it would have been a very hard sell.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The German Air Force acquired 558 F-84s of different types, of which 202 were lost...36.2% for the F-84, in contrast to 31.88% for the F-104 (i.e., 916 acquired and 292 lost).

In the F-104's case weren't most of those CFIT? Hardly the crate's fault if the driver steers for the ground. The Canadians did fine with their CF-104s, assigned a NATO tactical nuke strike mission.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Only with a new wing.

Ki-44 had a wing loading of about 38lbs per sq ft.
A F8F-2 had a wing loading of 42lbs per sq ft.

F4U-1 corsair ranged from about 35lbs per sq to to 40 lbs per sq ft clean depending on fuel load and ammo.

It was possible but it would have been a very hard sell.

I would expect the view over the nose might be a hard sell for carrier use as well. And the comically small vertical stab and rudder might need "tweaking" before it would offer an acceptable degree of stability or yaw control on approach

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Early jets have high loss rates, film at eleven. 'Tisn't news, is it?

Meanwhile, we've got the Buffalo and the MS.406 fighting for the cellar in the on-topic thang.

The Boomerang might be in there, too.

 

[glennasher]

They only built 250 of the Boomerangs, so it wouldn't have been in the running. Sorry.

 

[SaparotRob]

If only someone had thought enough of the Buffalo to save one...and a TBD or two.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

They only built 250 of the Boomerangs, so it wouldn't have been in the running. Sorry.

Ouch and sorry, So Buffalo and 406 it is.

I'm torn. Torn, I tell ya.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

If only someone had thought enough of the Buffalo to save one...and a TBD or two.

More than half of all the remaining TBDs got shot down or otherwise lost on 4 Jun 42. Production had ceased I think two years before the battle, and the USN had about 80 on stock when the Battle of Midway opened.

After that battle, the Stateside remainders were shuttled into training or hack duties, and the remaining 30-something airframes were worn down and discarded.

It'd be nice to see at least a static example of each.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Meanwhile, we've got the Buffalo and the MS.406 fighting for the cellar in the on-topic thang.

Agreed. It's time to compare these two, via Wikipedia. Why can't Wikipedia have consistent UOMs?

Brewster F2A Buffalo - Wikipedia

• Maximum speed: 321 mph (517 km/h, 279 kn)
• Service ceiling: 33,200 ft (10,100 m)
• Rate of climb: 2,440 ft/min (12.4 m/s)
• Guns: 4 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) nose-mounted M2 Browning machine guns

Morane-Saulnier M.S.406 - Wikipedia

• Maximum speed: 452 km/h (281 mph, 244 kn) at 2,000 m (6,600 ft)
• Service ceiling: 9,400 m (30,800 ft)
• Rate of climb: 13 m/s
• Guns: 1× 20 mm (0.787 in) Hispano-Suiza HS.404 cannon, 2× 7.5 mm (0.295 in) MAC 1934 machine guns

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Agreed. It's time to compare these two, via Wikipedia. Why can't Wikipedia have consistent UOMs?

Brewster F2A Buffalo - Wikipedia

• Maximum speed: 321 mph (517 km/h, 279 kn)
• Service ceiling: 33,200 ft (10,100 m)
• Rate of climb: 2,440 ft/min (12.4 m/s)
• Guns: 4 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) nose-mounted M2 Browning machine guns

Morane-Saulnier M.S.406 - Wikipedia

• Maximum speed: 452 km/h (281 mph, 244 kn) at 2,000 m (6,600 ft)
• Service ceiling: 9,400 m (30,800 ft)
• Rate of climb: 13 m/s
• Guns: 1× 20 mm (0.787 in) Hispano-Suiza HS.404 cannon, 2× 7.5 mm (0.295 in) MAC 1934 machine guns

Definitely agreed about the UOMs being all to shit and gone. I also think some qualities of a plane really don't translate to spec sheets very well.

 

[SaparotRob]

Comparing the rate of climb specs posted, the Buffalo is cuter.

 

[SaparotRob]

More than half of all the remaining TBDs got shot down or otherwise lost on 4 Jun 42. Production had ceased I think two years before the battle, and the USN had about 80 on stock when the Battle of Midway opened.

After that battle, the Stateside remainders were shuttled into training or hack duties, and the remaining 30-something airframes were worn down and discarded.

It'd be nice to see at least a static example of each.

That's all I ask.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Comparing the rate of climb specs posted, the Buffalo is cuter.

The 406 seems to lose in RoC, top speed, and service ceiling. Armament might be a wash, but I don't know my ass from third base about French weapons.

Reliability and pilot comfort are other specs that aren't measured in the sheets, but matter in the field.