Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

which aircraft would you choose?

Discussion in 'Air Warfare' started by fovcollector, Aug 20, 2005.

  1. -DMPN- Founderer

    -DMPN- Founderer New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ontario
    via TanksinWW2
    The Fokker G.1 has got my vote. Best plane ever, it owned the sky's... well for the one day when holland atually had an airforce. O well still like to have one.
     
  2. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    The G.1 was in all fairness a pretty unremarkable aircraft. Had it seen large scale combat I have no doubt that it would have faired little better than the Bf110 and probably garnered the same reputation: Adequate performance, good firepower, dismal manouevrability, shot out of the sky by contemporary single engine single seaters.

    If the Netherlands were ever in a position to require a radar equipped nightfighter,the G.1 could have probably been successful in that role.

    It would be an interesting aircraft to have a model of though.
     
  3. Wolverine phpbb3

    Wolverine phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    de Havilland Mosquito and P-47 Thunderbolt (just something about this big 'ol hog...)
     
  4. -DMPN- Founderer

    -DMPN- Founderer New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ontario
    via TanksinWW2
    I dont know man. The G.1 did far ok not great but ok against the messerschmitt's. and if they would have had the hole war to do research and run tests on the Fokker they might have had a pretty good dual body air plain on their hands.
     
  5. Ome_Joop

    Ome_Joop New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Calling the G.1 unremarkable...simon that hurts.... :bang:
     
  6. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    OK, for a quick comparison.

    A contemporary, the Bf110C:

    Length 12.3 m 40 ft 6 in
    Wingspan 16.3 m 53 ft 4 in

    Weights
    Empty 4,500 kg 9,900 lb
    Loaded 6,700 kg 14,800 lb
    Powerplant

    Engine 2 x Daimler-Benz DB 601B
    Power (each) 809 kW 1,100 hp
    Performance
    Maximum speed 563 km/h
    Combat range 2,410 km 1,500 miles
    Service ceiling 35,000 ft

    Armament
    Guns 2 x 20 mm MG FF/M cannons
    4 x 7.92 mm MG 17 machine guns
    1 x 7.92 mm MG 15 for defense

    Accommodation: Pilot and gunner.

    Vs the G.1

    Total Length : 35.663 ft 10.870 m
    Wingspan : 56.299 ft 17.160 m
    Max take off weight : 11025.0 lbs 5000.0 kg
    Weight empty : 8665.7 lbs 3930.0 kg

    Performance data
    Max. speed : 475 km/h
    Service ceiling : 30840 ft 9400 m
    Range : 810 nm 1500 km
    Crew : 2-3

    Armament :
    9* MG 7,9mm Madsen

    Overall the G.1 is bigger, slower, has poorer armament, poorer range and a poorer ceiling. It has a larger wingspan indicating a poorer roll rate. It is lighter, but is operating on lower rated engines.

    Historically the Bf110 was pretty easy pickings for contemporary modern single seat single engine fighters, the G.1 would have almost certainly been even easier given that it was overall a poorer aircraft.

    If the Netherlands had been able to last longer I think either the G.1 would be developed as a nightfighter (If needed) or abandoned. As a combat fighter c.1941 it would be little more than a flying coffin.

    I do not wish to offend the Dutch, but I stick by my statement that the G.1 was unremarkable. Let's put this completely in perspective, it doesn't even compare that favourably to the Blenheim MkIF...!
     
  7. Ome_Joop

    Ome_Joop New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes i know all those things simon...but still it's not unremarkable!
    It's the best and best looking aircraft the Dutch had!
    (BTW you know what those D.XXI did!)!
    Being remarkable in this case has nothing to do how it's specs or performance compare to others...it's just the aircraft itself! :wink:

    BTW i wonder how it would have performed with a couple of DB's or Merlins....(Merlins were planned originally)?

    Armament :
    9* MG 7,9mm Madsen ??

    you mean probable:
    23mm Madsens.. those are cannons!
    The other guns were 7.9mm Browning machine guns!

    versions had:
    2 x 23mm Madsens + 2 x 7.9mm 7.9mm Browning machine guns (+ 1 in tail)!

    or
    4 x 7.9mm 7.9mm Browning machine guns (+ 1 in tail)!

    or
    8 x 7.9mm 7.9mm Browning machine guns (+ 1 in tail)!
     
  8. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    I realised the error with the armament after posting it, as I understand it though most if not all of the alternative fits were planned rather than actually fitted.

    In any case it doesn't really change the fact that the aircraft itself was pretty unremarkable, and if comparing the capabilities of the aircraft is not a good way to decide which is or isn't a remarkable aircraft then I'm not sure what else to base it on. The only contemporary "Fighter" I can think of off hand that it was better than is the Blenheim MkIF and as I said, even then it's not by a huge margin.

    An aircraft may achieve remarkable results and fame (Such as the Gladiator or Swordfish) under the right circumstances without having remarkable capabilities. The G.1 may have been the best the Dutch had, and it may have done well defensively against the Luftwaffe when it was able to get into the air (On that score I really don't know), but this doesn't change the matter that the aircraft's performance and capabilites were distinctly mediocre.

    Had it seen greater action I cannot see it forming a great reputation given all its weaknesses.

    You could change the engines, you could probably change 100 things to improve the performance of the aircraft (As you might with many aircraft), but the aircraft that actually were built is what I am referring to, not "What If...?" alternatives.

    With all that in mind I will say again that the aircraft was basically unremarkable.
     
  9. Ome_Joop

    Ome_Joop New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    No problem...it's just your opinion...i think all Dutch are against you on this one!
    (If it was a belgian aircraft i would probable say you are right...but now....)

    With its heavy armament and clean lines, the G.1. was the best aircraft the Dutch air force had in May 1940.
    IOW a remarkable aircraft compared to other Dutch aircraft! :wink:

    To make it really remarkable....

    On the first day of the war, 15 of the 124 operational airplanes were destroyed on the ground. In spite of that, our airmen and anti-aircraft personnel succeeded in destroying 328 of the 1024 deployed German aircraft. (One third of the whole German Air Transport fleet in one day; this never happened again during WW2!)

    remarkable (as G.1's took part of that action!)!
     
  10. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    And an interned Fairey Battle was the most capable and modern bomber of the Irish Air Force, doesn't make it a remarkable plane though...

    Were these losses to the Luftwaffe actual losses or claimed/confirmed kills? Was the Luftwaffe transport fleet ever used again in such concentration?

    In either case it doesn't really matter, the action was remarkable in the same way the defence of Malta by Faith, Hope and Glory was remarkable or the crippling of the Bismark by Swordfish was remarkable, in each instance though the aircraft themselves were not.
     
  11. Ome_Joop

    Ome_Joop New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    it where actual losses!
    The G.1 was a remarkable aircraft no matter what you think(you can your oppinion)!
    It was a sensation when it first was shown to the public on the 1936 Paris airshow (and it hadn't even flown yet...so what do you mean specs count to make it a remarkable aircraft??)

    The plane got several nicknames on this show that pointed to the heavy armament in the nose: the French called the G.1."le Faucheur", which means "Mower" and the British called the plane "Reaper". ...all this because it was an sensation at that time!

    I rest my case and their is nothing you can do about it to say it's not remarkable...your are simple wrong about this one! :wink:
     
  12. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Um, well, it was remarkable for its design (twin-boom) and (for the time) impressively heavy armament (8 mgs in nose).

    However, as Simon rightly points out, in terms of actual performance it was distinctly mediocre, being worse in all measurable fields than the Bf110, its nearest peer in German service.

    And should I point out that after 1936 all modern RAF single-engine fighters had the same arament, and that in wartime they found that it was rapidly becoming insufficient... :wink:

    Yes, it managed to massacre transport aircraft - but then any fighter aircraft that cannot massacre transport aircraft is remarkable - in entirely the wrong way.

    To sum up - the G.1 was remarkable in terms of the visual impression it made when first unveiled, but in reality was not actually a top-ranking aircraft.

    Yes, this is a shame (it does look lovely), and I do wonder what effect upping the engine power would have...
     
  13. Ome_Joop

    Ome_Joop New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    in reality was not actually a top-ranking aircraft....of coarse it was not!
    The Dutch never had anything slightly comparable to the Me-109 or Bf-110...but that was not the issue here!

    Top pics for me would be a complete dutch WWII aircraft collection remarkable or not...it doesn't matter..it does matter that i would love those!!
     

Share This Page