The Chesapeake was the better of the two, being marginally functional vs. a complete non-starter like the Bermuda. Vindicators (Chesapeake) were actually used at Midway, though it's unclear if they got any hits.
Worst mass produced, monoplane, single-engine, single-seat, retractable undercarriage fighter of WW2?
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
The Chesapeake was the better of the two, being marginally functional vs. a complete non-starter like the Bermuda. Vindicators (Chesapeake) were actually used at Midway, though it's unclear if they got any hits.
Though they took apaaling losses, there are also a significant number of Soviet Aces who made Ace fighting against the Germans in the I-16. It was obsolescent and difficult to fly but I think in the hands of a good pilot it could do surprisingly well. Against a BF 109E or a Bf 110 it wasn't such a bad match on paper, though it was really in trouble against a 109F. Still probably better than the B-229 or Hawk 75 that the Finns liked so much. The I-16 had similar performance and maneuverability but was much more heavily armed and had armor and self-sealing fuel tanks.
The bigger problems with the VVS early on was with pilot training, tactics and lack of radios. Their biggest problem with their fighters was more an issue of build quality.
Compared to the newer generation of fighters, MiG 3, LaGG 3, and Yak-1, the I-16s were also being built to a better quality standard for the most part, as the factories making them were not as new and the workers a bit more experienced. They had already been making them for 7 years by the time the war started. It was at least a year before build quality of the newer fighter designs began to catch up.
The bigger problems with the VVS early on was with pilot training, tactics and lack of radios. Their biggest problem with their fighters was more an issue of build quality.
Compared to the newer generation of fighters, MiG 3, LaGG 3, and Yak-1, the I-16s were also being built to a better quality standard for the most part, as the factories making them were not as new and the workers a bit more experienced. They had already been making them for 7 years by the time the war started. It was at least a year before build quality of the newer fighter designs began to catch up.
That would be the I-180. canceled in prototype stage and factory used to make the lagg-3
- Thread starter
- #226
Admiral Beez
Major
TSR biplanes and retrofitted Fulmars aside, I suppose, after the Skua was removed, any decently competent monoplane, retractable undercarriage dive-bomber would have been welcome on RN carriers.
Doesn't seem lke RN got a lot of SBD's, do you know why? Maybe they thought their range was too short...? Those were the by far the most effective early war navy strike planes.
buffnut453
Captain
Experience over Finland would suggest not. The most common kills by Finnish pilots, in descending order, were the SB-2, DB-3, I-16 and I-153. Seems like the I-16 suffered rather badly at the hands of the B-239 and H-75 flown by the Finns.
- Thread starter
- #230
Admiral Beez
Major
I think the small CAG needed multipurpose types, so Stringbags and Applecores that could partially dive bomb and also carry a torpedo was deemed best.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
SBDs didn't have folding wings.
I-16s came with a variety of armaments and many had just four 7.62mm guns.
The versions with a 20mm in each wing were not that common and the some of the last I-16s built used /a synchronized 12.7 in the fuselage with a pair of 7.62mm's.
The earlier 20mm gunships used against the Japanese were effective but the Japanese planes in use at the time did not need 20mm guns to destroy them and the extra weight affected the speed and maneuverability.
I-16s were noted for being rather poor gun platforms, they snaked in flight.
I-16s came with a variety of armaments and many had just four 7.62mm guns.
The versions with a 20mm in each wing were not that common and the some of the last I-16s built used /a synchronized 12.7 in the fuselage with a pair of 7.62mm's.
The earlier 20mm gunships used against the Japanese were effective but the Japanese planes in use at the time did not need 20mm guns to destroy them and the extra weight affected the speed and maneuverability.
I-16s were noted for being rather poor gun platforms, they snaked in flight.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
The synchronized guns in the fuselage were bit slower. But the four gun I-16 was probably comparable to a six gun Hawk 75. (whose cowl guns also fired a bit slower than the wing guns).
tengu1979
Airman 1st Class
P-11 doestm meet criteria of retractable undercarriage and closed cockpit. As for armament P. 11a and b had only two MGs. P11c (and not really built g variant) had 4 but 2 of them were field removed to Save weight andimprove speed.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Could the Boulton Paul Defiant have been made less awful by removing the turret or was the production run over when realized it stunk?
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
... and keeping in the spirit, 2 .303 caliber wing guns instead.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,311
- Jun 25, 2013
Removing the ton or so of turret and its drag wouldn't hurt performance, but it would still be far too much airframe for its role.
I think "turret fighter" was one of those concepts which made some sense on paper but the Defiant, like its closest US counterpart, the FM-1, was an idea which was intrinsically flawed. If anything, the Defiant was, at least, a competently designed airframe.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
So a simple "chopping off" a length for balance wouldn't have helped (center of gravity)? I was thinking of improving a bad plane by taking stuff out and using less critical materials.
I never knew the FM-1 was not an improvement.
buffnut453
Captain
The Defiant wasn't a bad plane. It was a good design that met a flawed specification.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I think you just explained the reason for most of the awful aircraft ever built.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
