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

[eagledad]

Per the MS-406.

Gentlemen,

Let us not forget about the Mörkö Morane where the airframe had its original engine replaced with with captured Klimov M-105P engines of 1100HP. The engine change boosted the Morane's top speed, ceiling and rate of climb.

My understanding is that the Finns converted 50 +/- machines.

Data follows

Mörkö Morane / Morane-Saulnier MS 406 C1
Crew: 1 co-
Length: 8.17 m
Distance between 10.62 m
Wing area: 16.00 sq
Empty weight: 2 210 kg
Maximum Take-off Weight: 2 787 kg of
Engine: Klimov M 105P -rivimoottori, 12 cylinders,
power: 820 kW (100 hp 1) 2 000 meters, the propeller W-61P.
Highest speed around 440 km / h (at sea level)
Maximum Speed: about 510 km / h (000 meters 4)
rising speed of about 17 m / s (0-3 000 meters)

Armament: 2 x 7,5mm mg + 1 x 20 mm Mauser MG-151/20 150 -tykki which the projectile.
----------------------------
Installation Planning began immediately. Engine was one 1, 820 kW Klimov M-105P and the main weapon 20mm cannon, in addition to which two blades was 7.5 mm machine guns. Changes had to be made to the exhaust system, turbocharger, coolant tank and oil cooler. The modification was made without drawings and the first modified machine (MS-631) trial was completed in January 1943 and the first flight took place in February 1943.

FWIW

Eagledad

 

[glennasher]

Wasn't the original Hawk noted for wrinkling it's wings when worked a little too hard? Adding a more powerful motor might not be the best thing to do, IIRC, it had to be stiffened up a couple of times before they even thought about putting the Allison in it.

 

[SaparotRob]

(I actually do read the specs.. Shhhh, don't tell anyone.)

 

[Admiral Beez]

Of course more squadrons in Malaya would have been useful. I'm unsure how much so.

IIRC from Bloody Shambles the Buffalo had a good kill ratio over Malaya.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

IIRC from Bloody Shambles the Buffalo had a good kill ratio over Malaya.

I'll look up the numbers in the next few days, if they're around. You've mentioned this before in other threads.

 

[Juha3]

Yeah...I'm trying to work out a plan to visit that wee beastie. Alas, it's not exactly easy to reach, even from within Europe.

I used to drive past the museum at least once a year so it was easy to pay a visit now and then, at least in theory but almost every time I was with my wife, on the way to my parents in-laws and she has zero interest in warplanes, so visits needed some prior consultations.

But the museum is next to Jyväskylä airport and flights from Helsinki to Jyväskylä and vice-versa began again about a month ago. I don't know how many times a week but probably at least a couple time a week.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I'll look up the numbers in the next few days, if they're around. You've mentioned this before in other threads.

At least nine Commonweath pilots either became aces in the Buffalo or increased their scores to achieve acedom, and a further fifteen aces flew the Buffalo in combat.

https://www.amazon.com/Brewster-Buffalo-Aces-World-Aircraft/dp/1846034817/

 

[SaparotRob]

I guess that's the thing about these "also rans". They were, sometimes, just SO close. Believe it or not, I get P-39 Expert's frustration. IF the Buffalo was built to spec or IF the MS. 406 had a more powerful engine..... Maybe that's why some of us have a soft spot for them.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I guess that's the thing about these "also rans". They were, sometimes, just SO close. Believe it or not, I get P-39 Expert's frustration. IF the Buffalo was built to spec or IF the MS. 406 had a more powerful engine..... Maybe that's why some of us have a soft spot for them.

It's interesting that the Swiss chose the MS.406 to license build.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I guess that's the thing about these "also rans". They were, sometimes, just SO close. Believe it or not, I get P-39 Expert's frustration. IF the Buffalo was built to spec or IF the MS. 406 had a more powerful engine..... Maybe that's why some of us have a soft spot for them.

The other thing is how much designers of subsequent aircraft learnt from these marginal or failed designs. That has value, too.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The other thing is how much designers of subsequent aircraft learnt from these marginal or failed designs. That has value, too.

And that brings me back to pre-war France. With at least six separate fighter programs from six different designers there was little chance to learn from failures and continually innovate.

Could France make due with just two fighters?

How else can we explain France developing and flying the POS SNCAO 200?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

And that brings me back to pre-war France. With at least six separate fighter programs from six different designers there was little chance to learn from failures and contiously innovate.

Could France make due with just two fighters?

I'd read that post earlier and didn't reply at the time, but I do agree. Effective military procurements must take into account the strength of the national economy. Aside from those fighter programs, you have a lot of bombers to build, and you're trying to build Char B1s and finish the two battleships, too.

All that is a big ask for the French economy of the era.

 

[Shortround6]

The Buffalo was over taken by events.
It is also an example of "cutting" edge that backfired.

Once piece wing, good idea for light weight, bad idea for ease of repair, especially if it goes through the middle of the fuselage.
Mid-wing design, good idea for streamlining, doesn't need big wing root fairings. Bad idea, see above.
Use the box spar as fuel tank, good idea for light weight, bad idea for ease of repair, really bad idea trying to fit self sealing tank liners and/or repair them.

It used three engines.

F2A-1 and the Finns got a 950hp engine with no reduction gear that weighed 1114lbs and used a small propeller, 262lbs

All of the rest of the export planes got an 1100hp engine with a reduction gear and larger prop, engine weighed 1287lbs

The F2A-3 got a 1200hp engine that weighed 1315lbs. Prop weighed 339lbs. All engines had two speed superchargers.
The F2A-3 engine had 150hp more at 14-15,000ft max continuous.

Overtaken by events means, (according to me). the addition of armor and protected tanks and trying to fix the landing gear (all too prone to bending/breaking in carrier use) added weight. Poor specifications by the Navy did not help. "standard" fighter configuration seems to have been two .50 cal guns and 110 gallons of fuel. four guns and 180 gallons was overload. The Buffalo used the smallest wing of any American fighter, it had the worst drag coefficient. It's engine/s weren't enough to make up the difference.

 

[Admiral Beez]

All that is a big ask for the French economy of the era.

It's true, but if France was firmly led its government could have forced the hand of the aeroplane suppliers. Make just the MS.406, then just the D.520. They both use the Hispano-Suiza 12Y engine, giving time and scale to make improvements. Skip the MB.150, VG-33, C.714, etc.

As for bombers, make just the LeO 45 (308 mph, 3,457 lb bombs) and MB.170, again sharing the same engine (Gnome-Rhône 14N) allows for scale and improvements. Maybe the Bréguet 693 can find a niche in CAS. Everything else, like the Potez 630 was needless duplication of effort or just plain crap.

Look at postwar France for what's possible. Under CDG, France focused all fighter and (less a few failed Sud Aviation types) bomber development onto Dassault (nee Bloch)'s Mystere and Mirage series.

 

[ssnider]

The Buffalo was over taken by events.
It is also an example of "cutting" edge that backfired.

Once piece wing, good idea for light weight, bad idea for ease of repair, especially if it goes through the middle of the fuselage.
Mid-wing design, good idea for streamlining, doesn't need big wing root fairings. Bad idea, see above.
Use the box spar as fuel tank, good idea for light weight, bad idea for ease of repair, really bad idea trying to fit self sealing tank liners and/or repair them.

It used three engines.

F2A-1 and the Finns got a 950hp engine with no reduction gear that weighed 1114lbs and used a small propeller, 262lbs

All of the rest of the export planes got an 1100hp engine with a reduction gear and larger prop, engine weighed 1287lbs

The F2A-3 got a 1200hp engine that weighed 1315lbs. Prop weighed 339lbs. All engines had two speed superchargers.
The F2A-3 engine had 150hp more at 14-15,000ft max continuous.

Overtaken by events means, (according to me). the addition of armor and protected tanks and trying to fix the landing gear (all too prone to bending/breaking in carrier use) added weight. Poor specifications by the Navy did not help. "standard" fighter configuration seems to have been two .50 cal guns and 110 gallons of fuel. four guns and 180 gallons was overload. The Buffalo used the smallest wing of any American fighter, it had the worst drag coefficient. It's engine/s weren't enough to make up the difference.

Do you have a source for early WWII aircraft drag coefficients?

 

[Glider]

(I actually do read the specs.. Shhhh, don't tell anyone.)

Don't worry, your secret is safe with us, you hide it well

 

[SaparotRob]

I know, right?

 

[Vincenzo]

SE SS RLG
timeline for time to delivery to unit
Polikarpov I-16 ?/35
Messerschmitt Bf 109 2/37
Curtiss Hawk 3/37
Seversky P-35 5/37
Hawker Hurricane 12/37
Heinkel He 112 12/37
Morane Saulnier M.S.405 5/38
Supermarine Spitfire 8/38
Fiat G.50 1/39
Marcel Bloch M.B. 150 3/39
Brewster Buffalo 7/39
Heinkel He 100 Summer/39
Macchi C.200 8/39
Dewoitine D.520 1/40
Grumman Wildcat 2/40
Rogozarski IK-3 3/40
Koolhoven FK.58 ?/40
Arsenal VG 30 5/40
Caudron C.714 5/40
Curtiss-Wright CW-21 5/40
Reggiane Re.2000 5/40
Curtiss Warhawk 6/40
Mitsubishi A6M 7/40
Republic Lancer 9/40
Bell Airacobra 9/40
Mikoyan i Gurevich MiG-1 12/40
Mikoyan i Gurevich MiG-3 1/41
Lavochkin-Gorbunov-Gudkov LaGG-3 1/41
IAR 80 2/41
Yakovlev Yak-1 Early/41
MacchiC.202 5/41
NakajimaKi-43 6/41
Focke Wulf Fw 190 8/41
Hawker Typhoon 9/41
Nakajima Ki-44 9/41
Reggiane Re.2001 9/41
North American Mustang 10/41
Yakovlev Yak-7 10/41
Caproni Vizzola F.5 Winter/42, they were built but not delivered in '40
Republic Thunderbolt 5/42
Vought Corsair 7/42
Lavochkin La-5 Summer/42
Vultee Vanguard 8/42
CAC Boomerang 10/42
Kawasaki Ki-61 11/42
Yakovlev Yak-9 12/42
Grumman Hellcat 1/43
AviaB-135 2/43
Macchi C.205 4/43
Reggiane Re.2005 4/43
Fiat G.55 6/43
Ambrosini SAI 207 7/43
Bell Kingcobra 10/43
FFVS J 22 10/43
Mitsubishi J2M 12/43
Hawker Tempest 1/44
Kawanishi N1K -J 1/44
Yakovlev Yak-3 4/44
Lavochkin La-7 Spring/44
VL Myrsky 8/44
Nakajima Ki-84 10/44
Focke Wulf Ta 152 12/44
Kawasaki Ki-100 3/45
Grumman Bearcat 5/45