Lightweight fighters

[cheddar cheese]

Well the Italians had the Series 5 fighters too - more than enough to cope with allied fighters.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

what about allied fighters that far, far outweighed them in terms of numbers??

[cheddar cheese]

Maybe so, but when the RAF was defending Malta they were far, far out weighed in terms of numbers but they still came though. (But I think thats down to the fact that the Macchi MC.200 and, more so, the Fiat G.50 was pants )

[Beni]

But I mean not the cuality, that Im sure was enough, I mean the number of planes, the problems of fuel and materials supply , and the fact of the Reggia aeronautica losses against the allies in the mediterranean...I dont know...Is quite dificult to mesure...

Anyway a new type of plane in the ETO, should have force to a change in the allied tactics ....

[cheddar cheese]

Oh definatley. If the SAI.403 had made it into service the allied fighters would have had a problem. A highly manoeverable, well armed plane that was also fast as well with a half decent range is a rare thing.

[Chocks away!]

Specifications:
Ambrosini S.A.I. 403 italian fighter
Dimensions:
Wing span: 9,80m
Length: 8,20m
Height: 2,90m
Weights:
Empty: 1.983kg
Maximum Take-Off: 2.640kg
Performance:
Maximum Speed: 650km/h
Service Ceiling: 10.000m
Normal Range: 937km
Powerplant:
One 750PS Isotta-Fraschini R.C.21/60 V-Engine
Armament:
four 12,7mm Breda-SAFAT MG or each two
12,7mm Breda-SAFAT MG and 20mm MG151/20 cannon[/quote] These are quite impressive condidering it's a wee little plane!

[cheddar cheese]

Sure were! If ever you needed proof that Italians did have common sense, that plane is it. They couldnt build powerful enough engines so they combat it by reducing the weight.

And when it comes to underpowered engines the less said about the Breda Ba-88 the better

[the lancaster kicks ass]

but CC did she ever pull those stats off in combat?? how much ammo could she carry??

[cheddar cheese]

No it didnt pull em off in combat seen as only 1 was built...but it had all the guns and ammo equipped, not sure how much it was though...

[Chocks away!]

It's probably better than a Macchi 202! How come the Germans didn't consider producing it? They did with the Fiat G 55 and they didn't because of the working hours necessary! With this plane that wouldn't be thew case. A big ''what if''.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i don't think it'd do that well, i mean lightweight fighters weren't the most sucessfull were they........

[cheddar cheese]

Well because none were quite as good as the S.A.I 403...I dont see any reason why it wouldnt be good.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

ok if lightweight fighters would have been so good why didn't airforces use them??

[cheddar cheese]

Most countries didnt need them because their engines were powerful enough to power their planes. Another reason could be that most nations couldnt eek out high top speeds from them. The Dardo was also built using non-strategic materials, like a certain successful British plane

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

ok if lightweight fighters would have been so good why didn't airforces use them??

Because the mentality at the time was "bigger is better." On this side of the pond the only operational light weight fighter was the CW-21B Demon which was basically an American Zero (no pun intended) and it got mauled over Indonesia when the Dutch AF operated it. Some of the draw backs of most lightweight fighters designed during WW2 is something was always scrimped on; performance, armament, equipment, etc.

It wasn't until the late 60s and early 70s when the concept of a lightweight fighter was recognized, especially if arming a third-world country and it was then that designers started thinking in a full circle when designing lightweight fighters.