Jerry W. Loper
Airman 1st Class
- 121
- Oct 2, 2007
If France had not been knocked out in 1940 and lasted a few years, did the Dewoitone 520 have the development potential to stay competitive with top European fighters like the Spitfire and Me-109?
Dewoitone 520 question
- Thread starter Jerry W. Loper
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I have not seen specs for 520.. imho a very interesting and beutiful aircraft with great potential. Too bad it was never given a chance. Some features like supercharger and engine cannon were very forward for its time. Though I read it was not a very forgiving aircraft, and had violent spins.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Dewoitine D.520 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"It was a nasty little brute. Looked beautiful but didn't fly beautifully. Once you get it on the ground, I was told not to leave the controls until it was in the hangar and the engine stopped. You could be taxiing toward the hangar and sit back when suddenly it would go in a right angle."
It's possible the problems could have been fixed but that's a pretty damning evaluation from a highly regarded test pilot.
"It was a nasty little brute. Looked beautiful but didn't fly beautifully. Once you get it on the ground, I was told not to leave the controls until it was in the hangar and the engine stopped. You could be taxiing toward the hangar and sit back when suddenly it would go in a right angle."
It's possible the problems could have been fixed but that's a pretty damning evaluation from a highly regarded test pilot.
TheMustangRider
Senior Airman
I had always a particular interest for this fighter as well given the fact that it was not allowed to evolved technically as its main counterparts did throughout the war.
Does anyone has statistics on how well they performed against the Luftwaffe during the Battle of France?
Does anyone has statistics on how well they performed against the Luftwaffe during the Battle of France?
Counting individual cases in "Battle of France-Then and Now", D520's shot down 14 Bf109E's for loss of 30 D520's to Bf109E's, about the same kill ratio as Hurricane v 109 in BoF, .5:1, a bit worse than the Hawk 75 (.6:1), but considerably better than the older generation French fighters (Ms406, Bloch etc which went around .3:1 v the Bf109E).
Vichy D520's in Syria downed 2 Tomahawks for 3 losses, 4 Hurricanes for 2 losses, 3 Fulmars w/o loss, but lost 4 to Gladiators with no victories. One D520 and a Fulmar were downed off North Africa in May '42. In 'Torch' over Algeria Sea Hurricanes and Seafires downed 3 D520's w/o loss and USAAF Spitfires downed 3 with one loss; over Morocco USN F4F's may have accounted for the disappearance of an Aeronavale D520; the F4F's other opponents were H75's though they mistakenly claimed some D520's in other actions where none were airborne.
It's the pilot not just the plane, tactical and operational situations differ, D520's had greater success v non fighters (though hardly any WWII fighter *wasn't* successful v non-fighters)...all the usual caveats.
Joe
Last edited:
TheMustangRider
Senior Airman
Thanks for the information Joe, much appreciated.
As you correctly point out, in most cases it is the pilot and not just the plane; it is my opinion that the Dewoitone D.520 had the capability to remain competitive a few more years into the war.
As you correctly point out, in most cases it is the pilot and not just the plane; it is my opinion that the Dewoitone D.520 had the capability to remain competitive a few more years into the war.
My gut feeling is the the D-520 did not have the development potential of either the Bf-109 or Spit, in spite of the fact that it was conceptually similar. That said, I do believe the 520 would have given a good account of itself in 1940-41 if the collapse of France had not occurred as quickly as it did.
One reason I doubt the development potenial of the plane is the D-521. This D-520 modified to take the Merlin engine was by all reports worse than the original.
One reason I doubt the development potenial of the plane is the D-521. This D-520 modified to take the Merlin engine was by all reports worse than the original.
Shortround6
Major General
Some planes accepted larger engines with more grace than other planes did.
Planes that were nice handling planes or easy to fly had more "room" for things to to get worse before the handling got to "evil".
Planes that were marginal in handling qualities never seemed to get better with more power.
Planes that were nice handling planes or easy to fly had more "room" for things to to get worse before the handling got to "evil".
Planes that were marginal in handling qualities never seemed to get better with more power.
The heavier and more powerful engine would require airframe adjustments, no doubt about that. Before we proceed talking about how D.520 behaved, perhaps we should read the experiences of the regular users (French, Italians, Bulgarians), and look for the accidents vs. flying hours ratio.
BTW, Jenisch, why have you edited the post #10 in this thread?
BTW, Jenisch, why have you edited the post #10 in this thread?
I have noticed the error of my comparison. I didn't see you post after.
Hello!
I have collected the following data on the De 520:
First check out Kurfurst's Messerschmitt 109 Page, (at Kurfurst.org a great source for 109 data IMHO) specifically
Kurfürst - CEAM : Rapport sur l'avion Messerschmidt 109
Secondly, in trolling the net I found the following chart:
My God Fly your wing always!
Eagledad
I have collected the following data on the De 520:
First check out Kurfurst's Messerschmitt 109 Page, (at Kurfurst.org a great source for 109 data IMHO) specifically
Kurfürst - CEAM : Rapport sur l'avion Messerschmidt 109
Secondly, in trolling the net I found the following chart:
My God Fly your wing always!
Eagledad
yulzari
Staff Sergeant
The Bulgarians had no special affection for the type but I don't recall being told of losing many to ground accidents. Then again it was a professional highly trained (if poorly equipped) force designed to meet a threat from Romania or Turkey, not UK/US forces. The Germans sold them to the Bulgarians in lieu of more Me109s, which was what the Royal Bulgarian Air Force really wanted, as the Bulgarians pointed out that they had nothing other than a few Me109s that could seriously bring down a modern Allied bomber so Bulgaria was a open door into central europe. At least the D520 had a 20mm cannon (or 1/4 the firepower of a late MkII Hurricane!) Has to be better than a PZL24 or Avia for air defence. I suspect they were paid for in tobacco.
Hello Tomo Pauk!
D 520 no 3 was a standard early production aircraft that would have been found during the Battle of France. D 520 No 465 had a HS 12Y49 motor compared to no3's HS 12Y45, a revised front cowling (more streamlined), and "jet" exhaust stacks. My understanding is that No 465 is more representative of late production D520s, and would have appeared late in 1941.
May God fly your wing!
Eagledad
D 520 no 3 was a standard early production aircraft that would have been found during the Battle of France. D 520 No 465 had a HS 12Y49 motor compared to no3's HS 12Y45, a revised front cowling (more streamlined), and "jet" exhaust stacks. My understanding is that No 465 is more representative of late production D520s, and would have appeared late in 1941.
May God fly your wing!
Eagledad
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Interesting thread guys! One comment on Eric Brown's comments - I'd like to know what other pilots thought about the 520 in the air. Brown was very biased and for this most part his assessment of the aircraft's handling on the ground could be said about 3/4 of the fighters produced during WW2. Could Brown's opinions be based on the fact that some have said the 520 was comparable to early Spitfire marks? BTW Werner Molders was shot down by one during the battle of France.
