The simple and "light" fighters of WW2

Second that. "Light" aircraft in the context of this topic would seem to be those which were deliberately lighter, smaller, and more economic to produce than the standard types of their respective nations. The Zero/A6M was comparable to Japanese contemporaries like the Ki-43, B5N, or G4M. The construction of all these aircraft was lighter than their European or American counterparts, in order to get maximum performance with the available power plants, and of course that had consequences in vulnerability. Ironically the Japanese produced more rugged aircraft like the Ki-84 as the war went on.

 

One aspect of the "lightweights" that's often overlooked too is that they were especially vulnerable - and their design ethos didn't leave any weight allocation for pilot armour!

As for the Miles M.20 mentioned at the top of the thread, it wasn't actually a "lightweight" at all...in fact it was nearly a ton heavier loaded than the time-equivalent Spitfire IA, at 7,758 lbs loaded vs. the Spitfire's 5,844 lbs! The Miles, and several other British fallback designs of the time, was for a fighter that could be produced quickly, in large numbers, use a minimum of "strategic" materials...and in the case of the Miles use the existing Merlin XX installation. It's also often overlooked that in the summer of 1940 the majority of British FIGHTER production was in the south of the country...which would have been rather inconveniently placed in the event of invasion!

 

In a fight on equal terms Fw190 or Me109 should be superior to the Mosquito. Most of the time the Germans came up on top. . It was the word "never" that persuaded me to look up the details in Bowyers "Mosquito."

The words "WW2 fighter aircraft" doesn't automatically trigger an image of a twin engined fighter. But there were quite a lot of them. The RAF and Luftwaffe emphasised performance over endurance for their single seat fighters, and ended up with aircraft like the Beaufighter, Mosquito, Me110 and Ju88C as a long ranged fighter, The Japanese Ki45 is a similar concept) . None of these were a match for a decent WW2 era fighter on level terms, and well enough armed to take full advantage of surprise or altitude , any of these had the capability of shooting down sian aircraft if . The The American P38 cut out the second crewman and ended up with a twin engined fighter with a performance not far off that of the best single seat fighters. Before Ww2 no one really knew how air to air warfare would work, or was even possible between the fast monoplanes. The twin seat Bristol fighter didn't seem to have been disadvantaged in 1918.

 

Without looking, the p38 may have had the longest Allied fighter legs for its' time. Plus the two engines must have given their pilots a lot of confidence.
P38's were dispatched to assasinate Yamamoto (isn't that illegal?)
Operation Vengeance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Vengeance

 

Executive Order 11905 is a United States Presidential Executive Order signed on February 18, 1976, by President Gerald R. Ford as an attempt to reform the United States Intelligence Community, improve oversight on foreign intelligence activities, and ban political assassination.[1][2] Much of this EO would be changed or strengthened by Jimmy Carter's Executive Order 12036 in 1978.

As far as I know military leaders during war are fair game.

The US military refuses to ban mines and flamethrowers. I can't see them banning assassination.

 

He was also an enemy admiral flying in an enemy combat plane in a war zone so 'assassination' has always seemed a stretch to me.

 

Attacked by American pilots flying clearly marked American aircraft...This was all fair play, that I have no problem with.

Now, if the Americans had used captured Japanese aircraft or dropped a sniper clad in civilian/Japanese clothing, than a better case might be made for assassination.

 

Targeted, yes, assassinated? No. Military officer in a marked military aircraft, fair game. If the Japanese had a chance to get Nimitz or MacArthur in the same manner, also fair game.

 

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

By definition, it may have been.

 

Enemy soldiers, including admirals, are totally legitimate targets, though targeting an individual is a slippery slope. There were other similar ops, the botched raid on Rommel comes to mind.

Going back to lightweights the Italian SAI 207 and 403 never made it to production but the French C.714 did see some fighting in Polish hands but were replaced as soon as something better was available.

Post war NATO had a "lightweight" fighter completion that resulted in the Fiat G91 (and I believe the Folland Gnat) and the MB 339, Alpha Jet and Hawk ground attack versions were expressions of the "light" fighter.

In the USA the concept was resurrected with the "high - low" F15 - F16 combination, but the "low" component soon acquired almost as much avionics (and cost) as the high, in today's world of small air forces it's accepted the most expensive item is the pilot, so putting him into something less tan the best available doesn't make much sense, if we ever get to superpower confrontation scenarios where numbers count produced aircraft again the concept may be resurrected, nobody can afford thousands of high end fighters in peacetime.

 

I think there were some other factors which contributed towards the development and adoption of post war "Light fighters."

Before WW2 there was an argument that a light fighter might have an advantage in combat over a heavier one. It was true that light fighters such as the Ki43 or A6M were superior in a dogfight, but WW2 comprehensively demolished the idea that air to air superiority could be attained through dog fighting. All of the combatants adopted heaver faster and less manoeuvrable fighters - even the Japanese. Post war leading edge jet fighters were much faster, more difficult to fly and manouvre and expensive.

The light fighters G91, Folland Gnat, Hawker Hunter and F5 met some other needs:-

1. They provided jet trainers to allow for advanced training on fast jets. Johannes Steinhoff wrote in his biography that it was a mistake for the Luftwaffe to rearm with the F104 without some transitional aircrfat.

2. More cost effective to support operations in counter insurgency. .

3. Opportunity for poorer countries to have some jet aircraft

You are right that the cost and complexity piled on in all cases. The A10 Thunderbolt stated as an idea for a slow and light ground attack aircraft more cost effective than an F4 in COIN. The pattern is to have fewer and fewer weapons platforms at a spiralling procurement cost. This may be simply a function of technology, or perhaps the consequences that Eisenhower warned of allowing an efficient military industrial complex to fleece the taxpayer.

 

I would not call the plane a 'light' fighter in the sense that it was designed to miminize use of strategic materials. The Japanese attack showed the need for fighters, getting them from abroad looked uncertain, so a domestic production was begun. The problem with the engine was not the nominal horsepower -1,200 was actually very good for 1942- or the critical altitude of 15,000ft but the timing. The Boomerang did not arrive at the front until 1943 and by that time more advanced fighters were available in vast numbers.

 

Nor was the CA-13 Boomerang "light"....

Like the Miles discussed previously, weighing in at 7,699 lbs fully loaded/wet - the Boomerang was almost a ton heavier lumbering into the air as a Spitfire Ia....and even half a ton heavier wet than a V/Vb/Vc

 

OP says nothing about weight, only the use of non strategic materials- i interpret OP's definition of "light fighter" as lite : http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lite

Everyone wants a light fighter. Its the guns, ammo, armour etc that adds up. By calling it a lite fighter, it is admittedly not a front line fighter, and only used because there is nothing better at hand. Not because of its weight.
The Boomerang would never be called a heavy fighter, like the BF110, even though it was heavy.

 

The P-64 meets that definition of 'lite'.

 

Yeah...It was light on horsepower, light on speed, and light on performance.

However, if you are using the "light" definition in regards to weight...Well, it tipped the scales at about 4,600 pounds, so I wouldn't call it that "lite".

 

Limited use of strategic materials by itself doesn't make a "light" fighter, the wooden (Ki 106) and steel (Ki 112) derivatives of the Ki 84 were respectively 272 and 500Kg heavier than the base light alloy model. The concept of "light" fighter is more tied to picking a limited power engine and designing the plane around it using low cost available materials (this definition rules out the Merlin engined mossie as well).
In WW2 the meant usually meant cutting on range and armament to maintain acceptable performance with the result possibly being a decent point defence interceptor ..... until bombers became so big as to require heavy armament for a successful intercept.

The Soviets fighters were "light" compared to their opponents, and were often of mixed wood metal construction. The Zero was not a light fighter, it was all metal construction had a pretty powerful armament and used the best fighter engine available at the time to the JNAS, going for low wing loading gave it exceptionally good handling at the expense of speed, but had nothing to do with creating a "low cost" plane.

 

Great post...I would only add to the important definition given that you choose a plentiful or easy to build powerplant...you don't deliberately pick a limited power engine...the plentiful, easy to build and service and reliable engines are usually the older, less powerful models...here the Boomerang does fit into this category...