Minimum fighters mayhem

[tomo pauk]

In 1930s and 1940s (but not limited to) many companies were trying to design, manufacture and sell 'light fighters' - aircraft that will not be using latest engines, but that will rely on small size and weight in order to became performers. For many reasons, those designs rerely suceeded.
The task is here to 'design' fighters for the late 1930s/early 1940s, for each country & company historically capable of that, that will be using second- or even third-rate engines. Small stature, but still hopefully capable to provide good service. Armament, materials, technology and aerodynamics of the day to be used.
Engine power will be limited to 750 HP for up to year of 1939, 850 HP for 1940, 990 HP for 1941 and on. Just historical engines, up to two designs can be offered per country - on with liquid-cooled engine, another for air-cooled.
Armament of at least 4 LMGs, or 2 HMGs, or 1 cannon. Range/radius sufficient for current doctrine of the choosen air force/service.

 

[Gudestein]

Seems like He112 v4 would be an early contender?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

In 1930s and 1940s (but not limited to) many companies were trying to design, manufacture and sell 'light fighters' - aircraft that will not be using latest engines, but that will rely on small size and weight in order to became performers. For many reasons, those designs rerely suceeded.
The task is here to 'design' fighters for the late 1930s/early 1940s, for each country & company historically capable of that, that will be using second- or even third-rate engines. Small stature, but still hopefully capable to provide good service. Armament, materials, technology and aerodynamics of the day to be used.
Engine power will be limited to 750 HP for up to year of 1939, 850 HP for 1940, 990 HP for 1941 and on. Just historical engines, up to two designs can be offered per country - on with liquid-cooled engine, another for air-cooled.
Armament of at least 4 LMGs, or 2 HMGs, or 1 cannon. Range/radius sufficient for current doctrine of the choosen air force/service.

You'd need a pusher layout to get that level of armament and keep weight down and maneuverability up by avoiding weight on the wings.
Probably something very nearly like this, but with a weaker engine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyushu_J7W

The aerodynamics of the period did support it as the Italians had a similar aircraft in testing in 1939:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrosini_SS.4

In fact it probably meets your criteria with limited modification:

General characteristics

• Crew: 1
• Length: 6.74 m (22 ft 1 in) [2]
• Wingspan: 12.32 m (40 ft 5 in)
• Height: 2.49 m (8 ft 2 in)
• Wing area: 17.5 m2 (188 sq ft) [2]
• Gross weight: 2,449 kg (5,400 lb)
• Powerplant: 1 × Isotta-Fraschini Asso XI R.C.40 V-12 liquid-cooled piston engine, 720 kW (960 hp)
• Propellers: 3-bladed metal pusher propeller

Performance

• Maximum speed: 571 km/h; 308 kn (355 mph)
• Stall speed: 110 km/h (68 mph; 59 kn) [2]

Armament

• Guns: 2 x 20mm cannons + 1 x 30mm cannon (mounted in nose)

 

[sonofpegasus]

Miles Kestrel fighter 1937,

Uses the RR Kestrel and wooden construction so non strategic materials. Not far of Hurricane MkI performance AFAIK from reports of the time.

 

[Driftless]

The OTL light fighters often seem to originate from race planes (i.e. Caudron 714) The US Hughes H-1 and one or more of the Wedell-Willams racers were briefly touted as source material for fighters. The emphasis on speed over other characteristics: durability, range, armament.

 

[sdgottsch]

Seems like He112 v4 would be an early contender?

Gudestein, I think the Junkers Jumo 210 engine was still in demand for the BF-109D and Bf-110A/B during the timeframe. Honestly I wouldn't work with the German industry just because the LW was shepherding all components as well as airframes as early as 1938.

Tomo Pauk, I like the topic. My problem with coming up with an airframe is the ability to work on it or even partner the building in my country. It was hard for many countries to work with metal framed aircraft (due to industry limitations). My thought is the simple but effective Fokker DXXI with the radial engine from GR, PW, or CW (lots of variants) but with retractable gear.

 

[tomo pauk]

You'd need a pusher layout to get that level of armament and keep weight down and maneuverability up by avoiding weight on the wings.
Probably something very nearly like this, but with a weaker engine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyushu_J7W
The aerodynamics of the period did support it as the Italians had a similar aircraft in testing in 1939:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrosini_SS.4
In fact it probably meets your criteria with limited modification:

A single cannon was used historically with Jumo 210 engine, and also with HS 12X (predecessor of the 12Y), so there is no pressing need for unorthodox fighter layout. Two synchronised HMGs also worked, and it was not a problem to have 4 syncronised MGs (Fw 190A0/A-1, P-39C).

Miles Kestrel fighter 1937,

Uses the RR Kestrel and wooden construction so non strategic materials. Not far of Hurricane MkI performance AFAIK from reports of the time.

Conventional = it should work easily. Kestrel is a great choice.
Though, I'd go with DH, Supermarine or Percival when it is about high speed airframes in the late 1930s/early 1940s. Say, a fighter loosely based on S6, Mew Gull or the DH.88.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

A single cannon was used historically with Jumo 210 engine, and also with HS 12X (predecessor of the 12Y), so there is no pressing need for unorthodox fighter layout. Two synchronised HMGs also worked, and it was not a problem to have 4 syncronised MGs (Fw 190A0/A-1, P-39C).

I misread the firepower requirements, but I think it still stands that having more than a single cannon in the nose and leaving the field of fire clear by having a pusher would be more ideal than using a weak engine in a puller arrangement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_D.XXIII
This aircraft with a stronger engine in the pusher positions minus the nose engine would probably be pretty workable, especially for ground attack or bomber interception.

 

[Ramontxo]

Problem with push propellers was pilot exit. Without ejection seats trying to jump from the airplane was a interesting (in the Chinese sense) experience.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Problem with push propellers was pilot exit. Without ejection seats trying to jump from the airplane was a interesting (in the Chinese sense) experience.

Sure, but generally speaking bailing out of a 1930s fighter in combat is a pretty dicey affair period.

 

[tomo pauk]

I misread the firepower requirements, but I think it still stands that having more than a single cannon in the nose and leaving the field of fire clear by having a pusher would be more ideal than using a weak engine in a puller arrangement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_D.XXIII
This aircraft with a stronger engine in the pusher positions minus the nose engine would probably be pretty workable, especially for ground attack or bomber interception.

Yeah, a variant with single Jumo 210 or Kestrel, providing 20-40% more power than the Saggita, in a slightly smaller airframe, we'd see easy 300 mph + noninterrupted field of fire. Plus easier grund handling beacuse of mandatory tricycle U/C, as well as better visibility during taxying.

Interestingly enough, plenty of early ww2 fighters that were widely used didn't have engines of more than 750 HP - He 112, Bf 109A-D, Ki-27, A5M. So it is not as we'd make a lackluster with 2nd grade engine here. For the French, I'd like to see a small fighter with G&R 14M engine - more power than the Japanese had on those two.

 

[riggerrob]

We covered a similar challenge on the “Panic Fighter 1938” thread.
The Curtiss Wright -21 export fighter looked pretty good.

I proposed a fictional Gregor Monoplane fighter powered by a single-row, R-1820 radial engine with a modified propeller speed reduction unit that allowed installing a 20mm motor cannon. A pair of Browning .50 caliber machine guns in the wings .... tricycle undercarriage ..... tail hook. Gregor liked mostly sheet metal construction, but it could also be built of Duramold, even a welded steel-tube fuselage with Duramold fairings. A Durkaold skin would drive the top speed faster than 300 knots.

 

[Peabody-Martini]

The Australians did pretty well with the CAC Boomerang, mostly in CAS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC_Boomerang

 

[tomo pauk]

We covered a similar challenge on the “Panic Fighter 1938” thread.
The Curtiss Wright -21 export fighter looked pretty good.

I proposed a fictional Gregor Monoplane fighter powered by a single-row, R-1820 radial engine with a modified propeller speed reduction unit that allowed installing a 20mm motor cannon. A pair of Browning .50 caliber machine guns in the wings .... tricycle undercarriage ..... tail hook. Gregor liked mostly sheet metal construction, but it could also be built of Duramold, even a welded steel-tube fuselage with Duramold fairings. A Durkaold skin would drive the top speed faster than 300 knots.

The CW-21 indeedlooked like a good light fighter, even though it was too late to game. Though I like the P-66 more, both having a bit more power than specified. An US fighter with Twin Wasp Junior and 2 HMGs perhaps, later a version with turbocharger?

The Australians did pretty well with the CAC Boomerang, mostly in CAS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC_Boomerang

Not to insult anyone, especially the country that built aircraft factories from nothing, but it was an under-performer - speed and climb of 1937 in 1941? For a performer with about same power, we can check out P-66, Zero and FFVS J.22.

 

[Driftless]

The CW-21 indeedlooked like a good light fighter, even though it was too late to game. Though I like the P-66 more, both having a bit more power than specified. An US fighter with Twin Wasp Junior and 2 HMGs perhaps, later a version with turbocharger?

I've always had a soft spot for the CW-21 Demon, especially the "B" version, with fully retractable landing gear (as used by the Dutch in the DEI).

The P-66 had a tangled history, it's sales being bounced around by continually changing diplomatic issues with who could buy them. By the time that diplomatic dust settled, better options were available. It might have also benefited from being a bit less of a "kitbash" of assorted pieces and parts and been more optimized as a fighter.

 

[SwampTiger]

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloch_MB.700

Start this two years earlier and France has a decent little light fighter.

Even better if the AdA had settled on a heavy machine gun before the war. Two FN-Browning 13.2's, a lightened and improved Browning .50, would be perfect.

 

[tomo pauk]

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloch_MB.700

Start this two years earlier and France has a decent little light fighter.

Even better if the AdA had settled on a heavy machine gun before the war. Two FN-Browning 13.2's, a lightened and improved Browning .50, would be perfect.

Excellent choice, fits the bill remarkably well.

 

[sdgottsch]

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloch_MB.700

Start this two years earlier and France has a decent little light fighter..

Couldn't agree with you more but the French military and defense business infrastructure was so fractured you'd have to some how force them to start concentrating on buying 1 or 2 types of aircraft instead of spreading the buys like butter across a croissant. They did the same thing with their tank buying and look what it got them...granted some of the issue was simply a bad strategic idea of how to use the equipment.

 

[SwampTiger]

Couldn't agree with you more but the French military and defense business infrastructure was so fractured you'd have to some how force them to start concentrating on buying 1 or 2 types of aircraft instead of spreading the buys like butter across a croissant. They did the same thing with their tank buying and look what it got them...granted some of the issue was simply a bad strategic idea of how to use the equipment.

Agreed on the overall mess of French procurement. This aircraft allows use of the GR 14M, rather than the apparently better VG 30's use of the limited availability of HS12. Although, propellers and other equipment may have been the real bottleneck. Also pilots.

 

[tomo pauk]

Couldn't agree with you more but the French military and defense business infrastructure was so fractured you'd have to some how force them to start concentrating on buying 1 or 2 types of aircraft instead of spreading the buys like butter across a croissant. They did the same thing with their tank buying and look what it got them...granted some of the issue was simply a bad strategic idea of how to use the equipment.

The thing for the French is - what to buy with limit being 1 or 2 fighter designs? The MS.406 was of lacklustre performance (barely better than the Japanese fixed-U/C fighters with radial engines, less than Hawk 75s and He 112B with indifferent Jumo 210G), while also requiring inordinate amount of manhours to produce (IIRC same as the two-engined Pozez 63 series, or 50% more than D.520). Dewoitine D.500/501 line is hopeless, though a version with retractable U/C and better radiator would've been probably useful for 1940.
UK was buying Defiants and Gladiators along with Hurricanes and Spitfires, with Whirlwind and Beaufighter in pipeline. So I'd say that French need several designs to make up for shortcomings of their fighter's line-up.