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

[swampyankee]

I'm still stumping for the 406.

I'm not arguing. France was not well served by either its Air Force's procurement office or its aviation industry

 

[ssnider]

Some of the aircraft (I-16) were known to be obsolete at the start of WWII; one would expect them to perform poorly. This defense does not work for some, like the Buffalo.

The Buffalo does not need that defense.. Under the circumstances the British did not have a fighter that would have done any better against the Japanese, Both the Americans found it easier to blame the plane than admit that they had sent pilots into combat totally unprepared. , The Finns found their old Brewsters to be better than the other contemporary planes they had including hawk 75s and Hurricanes. In fact they considered the I-16 and Lagg-3 a more dangerous opponents then the Russian Hurricanes, Goeff Frisken considered the Buffalo to be a better fighter then the Hurricane IIB.

 

[gjs238]

Henschel Hs 123 was a dive bomber/close support aircraft. It was never intended to be fighter. Also had open cockpit and fixed landing gear.

Hi - It was a rhetorical question for Kevin J.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Buffalo does not need that defense.. Under the circumstances the British did not have a fighter that would have done any better against the Japanese,

The Buffalo was fine for the defence of Malaya. What they needed was more of them. In Nov 1941 Malaya Command had five active squadrons of Buffaloes for a territory larger than the UK (excluding the Sarawak, the Malay Peninsula alone is almost exactly the size of the entire UK), where RAF Fighter Command had over 80 fighter squadrons.

This photo below of a dozen RAF Buffaloes represents a full fifth of the entirety of Malaya Command's fighter force.

Give Malaya Command twenty squadrons of Buffaloes or something equal and they'll give the IJAF's Oscars and Nates a good fight. The Buffalo is fine, but you can't hold back a Japanese onslaught with sixty active aircraft.

 

[wuzak]

My comment about installing the Merlin XX is simple to understand AFAIK. Imagine you're an accountant in the Air Ministry. Your buying 300 Hurricanes and 150 Spitfires pcm during the Battle, you have the same number of fighters at the end of the BoB as you did at the beginning. It costs 10% less to build a Hurricane than a Spitfire, 55% of Luftwaffe aircraft have shot down by Hurricanes, 25% by Spitfires, 2/3 single seat fighters are Hurricanes, 1/3 Spitfires.

Point me to a link, a topic or post that has the statistics on which you are basing your analysis.

Also, I note that the aircraft losses do not form part of your reasoning. From what I understand, the Hurricane's victory/loss ratio was significantly lower than the Spitfire.

Also, would be great to know the proposition of fighters, bombers or other types that each Spitfire and Hurricane shot down.

The idea that Spitfires would go after fighters and Hurricanes bombers I believe is a myth. But it would still be interesting to see the breakdown by type destroyed.

Obviously the decision to install the Merlin XX in the Hurricane is the correct one as overall, the Hurricane squadrons have destroyed 10 % more enemy aircraft than the Spitfire ones. You'll need a grasp of simple maths here.

With twice as many aircraft?

The Hurricane needs the Merlin XX to be competitive with the Bf 109E. The Hurricane is always competitive with the Me 110, which is one third of Luftwaffe production. Only a tiny fraction of South East England is flyable to by any Bf 109 even with drop tanks, so at best you only need a third of fighter production to be Spitfires. You do need the Spitfire to intercept high altitude bomber raids, so you take the high blower out of the Merlin XX and call it the Merlin 45 and put it in the Spitfire V.

If the Hurricane is not to intercept "high altitude bomber raids", what is it supposed to do? Only go after bombers that fly in at the right height?

You do know that with the same engine the Spitfire was faster than the Hurricane at all heights? Had better rate of climb, higher critical altitude (yes, even with the same engine - that's what extra speed and ram effect gets you) and a higher ceiling.

You did mean to say they took out the MEDIUM blower (MS), not the HIGH blower (FS)?

Fun fact, the high gear (FS) in the Merlin XX was not the same ratio as the gear in the 45, and was in fact a higher ratio. That meant that the supercharger span faster and the XX had a higher critical altitude/FTH than the 45.

This is because single stage engines are, inevitably, a compromise. Running the same gear in the 45 as the XX would have sacrificed even more low altitude performance.

You don't want the Spitfire III with Merlin XX because of too many changes to the production lines. The Hurricane II is still competitive in most of the UK until well after Fw 190a comes along although it is replaced with both the Typhoon and later mark Spitfires.

Not sure how you can say that the "Hurricane II is still competitive in most of the UK until well after Fw 190a comes along", since the Fw 190A had arrived and the Hurricane II could not compete with that. Nor could it compete with Bf 109F1/2 or Bf 109F4, which arrived earlier than the Fw 190A.

To be frank, there are a few reasons why the Hurricane remained in production as long as it did, and I'm not sure that any had to do with performance.

#1 was that there were not enough Spitfires.
#2 was that the Typhoon wasn't going to be around, in sufficient numbers in time (remembering that the Typhoon was supposed to replace the Hurricane and Spitfire).
#3 was the time and effort required to change a factory designed to build aircraft made with a tubular steel frame and covered in fabric to one that used modern stressed skin aluminium construction.

The problem with basing decisions solely on accounting is that it is not very forward looking.

In 1940 it was obvious that keeping the Hurricane competitive with enemy aircraft would be difficult in the next few years. Something better was required - that was supposed to be the Typhoon, something the Air Ministry had planned for in 1938.

Regrading the MK.III, most of the changes required were unrelated to the engine installation. There were many areas of improved aerodynamics, for example.

The Spitfire V was essentially a Spitfire II with a Merlin 45 fitted. Such a conversion with the XX would have required more changes than for the 45, but not nearly as extensive as for the Mk.III.

A couple of extra points: the guy at the Air Ministry that saw the development of the Griffon and suggested it be used in an RAF fighter never mentioned the Hurricane, and Lord Hives of Rolls-Royce did not suggest putting the Merlin 60, developed for the high altitude Wellington, into a Hurricane. It may have been cheaper to do so, but they saw no point in it.

So, thank God that accountants did not control aircraft procurement in WW2.

 

[Kevin J]

 

[tengu1979]

I am leaning closer to MS.406 on this one but cannot disregard Bloch 150 family. Decent-ish airframe totally killed by engine (as true with most French aircraft of the era). If the CR.714 was built in bigger numbers I would have a clear contender though.

 

[Kevin J]

I am leaning closer to MS.406 on this one but cannot disregard Bloch 150 family. Decent-ish airframe totally killed by engine (as true with most French aircraft of the era). If the CR.714 was built in bigger numbers I would have a clear contender though.

When you say the Ms 406 fighter is bad, you're forgetting that the Swiss used them and further developed them during the war, they also got sent to France's colonial outposts. So against a Bf 109E, outclassed in almost all performance aspects although if used as close escort for French bombers, competitive. As a rear area bomber interceptor in 1939/40, competitive. Against anything the Italians or Japanese had in 1940 with the exception of small numbers of Zero's, competitive. Against any fighter the FAA had in 1940/41, competitive. Once the Seafire, Sea Hurricane II & Wildcat but not Martlet arrive, not competitive. So its not a bad fighter at all.

 

[Kevin J]

You do rea

Point me to a link, a topic or post that has the statistics on which you are basing your analysis.

Also, I note that the aircraft losses do not form part of your reasoning. From what I understand, the Hurricane's victory/loss ratio was significantly lower than the Spitfire.

Also, would be great to know the proposition of fighters, bombers or other types that each Spitfire and Hurricane shot down.

The idea that Spitfires would go after fighters and Hurricanes bombers I believe is a myth. But it would still be interesting to see the breakdown by type destroyed.




With twice as many aircraft?




If the Hurricane is not to intercept "high altitude bomber raids", what is it supposed to do? Only go after bombers that fly in at the right height?

You do know that with the same engine the Spitfire was faster than the Hurricane at all heights? Had better rate of climb, higher critical altitude (yes, even with the same engine - that's what extra speed and ram effect gets you) and a higher ceiling.

You did mean to say they took out the MEDIUM blower (MS), not the HIGH blower (FS)?

Fun fact, the high gear (FS) in the Merlin XX was not the same ratio as the gear in the 45, and was in fact a higher ratio. That meant that the supercharger span faster and the XX had a higher critical altitude/FTH than the 45.

This is because single stage engines are, inevitably, a compromise. Running the same gear in the 45 as the XX would have sacrificed even more low altitude performance.




Not sure how you can say that the "Hurricane II is still competitive in most of the UK until well after Fw 190a comes along", since the Fw 190A had arrived and the Hurricane II could not compete with that. Nor could it compete with Bf 109F1/2 or Bf 109F4, which arrived earlier than the Fw 190A.

To be frank, there are a few reasons why the Hurricane remained in production as long as it did, and I'm not sure that any had to do with performance.

#1 was that there were not enough Spitfires.
#2 was that the Typhoon wasn't going to be around, in sufficient numbers in time (remembering that the Typhoon was supposed to replace the Hurricane and Spitfire).
#3 was the time and effort required to change a factory designed to build aircraft made with a tubular steel frame and covered in fabric to one that used modern stressed skin aluminium construction.

The problem with basing decisions solely on accounting is that it is not very forward looking.

In 1940 it was obvious that keeping the Hurricane competitive with enemy aircraft would be difficult in the next few years. Something better was required - that was supposed to be the Typhoon, something the Air Ministry had planned for in 1938.

Regrading the MK.III, most of the changes required were unrelated to the engine installation. There were many areas of improved aerodynamics, for example.

The Spitfire V was essentially a Spitfire II with a Merlin 45 fitted. Such a conversion with the XX would have required more changes than for the 45, but not nearly as extensive as for the Mk.III.

A couple of extra points: the guy at the Air Ministry that saw the development of the Griffon and suggested it be used in an RAF fighter never mentioned the Hurricane, and Lord Hives of Rolls-Royce did not suggest putting the Merlin 60, developed for the high altitude Wellington, into a Hurricane. It may have been cheaper to do so, but they saw no point in it.

So, thank God that accountants did not control aircraft procurement in WW2.

You do realise that the Hurricane IIc was still being used in 1944 by the Soviets in the Arctic rear areas as a bomber interceptor and as close escort for attack aircraft though they did get mauled by some Bf 109Gs they tangled with on one escort mission and had to be rescued by some P-39s. Our FAA was still using the Sea Hurricane IIc on Arctic convoys until November 1944. It was competitive with the Me 110, the Bf 109 couldn't reach the convoys. Four 20 mm cannon packs enough punch to destroy anything that crosses its path.
As for the rest of your crap. No comment.

 

[tengu1979]

Well you have a point. Finns by puting Klimovs in them (Morko Morane) had quite few successes with them as well. The problem with Blochs on the other hand is the engine severely hampering performance. And that it was continued in production after armistice so 663 units were produced throughout a war including 157 which had good performance. Getting the worst is not gonna be easy at all as we either had obsolete aircraft by start of the war vs better designs in their first combat. Or bad designs that wont match mass build criteria.

 

[taly01]

The Finnish WW2 experience with the fighters other countries could spare may be a good baseline for the worst of the worst.

The Morane 406/410 were the least successful "modern" fighter the FAF had, next by success was Fiat G-50, then Curtiss Hawk 75A, then the Brewster Buffalo F2A-1 was by far the best. The performances they got from the everything but the Buffalo was well below the makers claimed performance.

(The least successful fighter the FAF used was Gloster Gladiator by ratio of pilots lost, so the I-16 was good for something.)

 

[tengu1979]

On the other part. If hurricane was that bad they will surely stop producing it quicker then they did. Hurricanes were used with relative success in Burma and North Africa as fighter bombers. I think the ease of repair and lower repair cost was something of value as well. While no match for latest iterations of 109s and 190s it was still enough for most Italian Arsenal. (probably no match for Veltro or Fiat G.55 but i am not sure if these were present in the area with great numbers)

 

[Admiral Beez]

I am leaning closer to MS.406 on this one but cannot disregard Bloch 150 family. Decent-ish airframe totally killed by engine (as true with most French aircraft of the era). If the CR.714 was built in bigger numbers I would have a clear contender though.

Wasn't the final MB fighter supposed to be fast? Or was that the aircraft where the Germans mixed up mph or kph?

Bloch MB-157

 

[tengu1979]

Wasn't the final MB fighter supposed to be fast? Or was that the aircraft where the Germans mixed up mph or kph?

Bloch MB-157

The 157 was the only one with enough performance. That is why i am not putting it up as the worst. It doesnt have a good record with 151,152 or even 155 on the other hand.

 

[RW Mk. III]

When you say the Ms 406 fighter is bad, you're forgetting that the Swiss used them and further developed them during the war, they also got sent to France's colonial outposts. So against a Bf 109E, outclassed in almost all performance aspects although if used as close escort for French bombers, competitive. As a rear area bomber interceptor in 1939/40, competitive. Against anything the Italians or Japanese had in 1940 with the exception of small numbers of Zero's, competitive. Against any fighter the FAA had in 1940/41, competitive. Once the Seafire, Sea Hurricane II & Wildcat but not Martlet arrive, not competitive. So its not a bad fighter at all.

According to profile publications, Gaston Botquin (I don't know the quality of this source) FAA Fulmars made short work of the MS406 they encountered in Madagascar.

Edit: looking into it it looks like Botquin was wrong, unless there is another engagement he is referencing. It was 3 Martlets vs 3 406. 1 Martlet forced landing to 3 406 destroyed.

 

[Kevin J]

According to profile publications, Gaston Botquin (I don't know the quality of this source) FAA Fulmars made short work of the MS406 they encountered in Madagascar.

Edit: looking into it it looks like Botquin was wrong, unless there is another engagement he is referencing. It was 3 Martlets vs 3 406. 1 Martlet forced landing to 3 406 destroyed.

The FAA had the best pilots in the World. You'd have to be the best to manage carrier take off and landings. The French pilots probably had succumbed to the colonial lifestyle.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I'm still stumping for the 406.

Someone must have liked it enough to keep one in running form.

 

[swampyankee]

The FAA had the best pilots in the World. You'd have to be the best to manage carrier take off and landings. The French pilots probably had succumbed to the colonial lifestyle.

They also may have been poorly supplied as a) the Axis submariners weren't terribly discerning about the nationalities of the ships they sunk, b) the RN wasn't likely to allow Vichy French ships into convoys, especially those carrying military spares, c) aviation military production was monitored and restricted by the Germans and, d) Madagascar was probably the French colony felt to be under the least external threat, as the UK hadn't been threatening to French possessions since well before WWI and the Portuguese couldn't. I don't know what internal issues the French colonial authorities had in Madagascar, but internal security duties frequently seem to be very effective at ruining armed forces for combat with real armed forces.

 

[RW Mk. III]

The Finnish WW2 experience with the fighters other countries could spare may be a good baseline for the worst of the worst.

The Morane 406/410 were the least successful "modern" fighter the FAF had, next by success was Fiat G-50, then Curtiss Hawk 75A, then the Brewster Buffalo F2A-1 was by far the best. The performances they got from the everything but the Buffalo was well below the makers claimed performance.

(The least successful fighter the FAF used was Gloster Gladiator by ratio of pilots lost, so the I-16 was good for something.)

^^^I think this cuts to the heart of the matter.

 

[Shortround6]

On the other part. If hurricane was that bad they will surely stop producing it quicker then they did. Hurricanes were used with relative success in Burma and North Africa as fighter bombers.

There is little doubt that the Hurricane did much good work as a fighter bomber/close support aircraft. That does not mean that they were under any illusions as to how good it was as a fighter plane. Lets also remember that the Typhoon was close to being canceled at one point and production was little more than a trickle for the first year or so.

You also have to look at the results of the Bombing of Supermarine's Southampton works. from wiki;

"Production fell from 363 aircraft in the quarter before the raids to 177 and 179 respectively in the next two quarters. It took another nine months before it was back to 100 per month,"

Castle Bromwich had only started producing Spitfires in June of 1940 with 10 planes delivered that month (MK IIs)

The bombing of the Southampton works and subsequent dispersal cost at least 600 Spitfires if not more over the next year to year and a quarter and the uncertainty of Spitfire production in the fall of 1940 /and winter/spring of 1941 may have helped the placement of Hurricane orders during that time. The Hurricane II may not have been what was wanted but what they could get.