Morning clue. Thanks; Ernie P.
What warbird do I describe?
1. This aircraft was not one of the more famous in its war. As such, it is largely unknown today
2. But it was very nearly much better known.
3. And there is a chance that, had it been the winner in an informal competition with a much more famous aircraft, it would itself be much more famous today.
4. It was not a formal competition as such; but a decision was being made as to which single aircraft type was to be produced in largely increased numbers. And our subject was one of the two under active consideration; although mainly as a backup for the other aircraft.
5. But the question is; “Would it have been famous or infamous”?
6. In trials, it proved to be an able contender.
7. It was fast and handled well.
8. It was very maneuverable.
9. It climbed quickly.
10. It offered its pilot excellent visibility.
11. Two versions were produced for the trials.
12. The second version was quite similar, but with a heavier armament.
13. When it was proposed to an ally, the ally wasn’t informed it was a design for a single seat fighter; and the ally decided not to order any of the type. And the producing country decided to select the other aircraft as its main fighter.
14. Nevertheless, more than 1,000 of the aircraft were produced as fighters.
15. It was very popular with the pilots who flew it. They loved its speed and maneuverability.
16. But there proved to be a wing defect; and there were several losses related to wing failure.
17. As a result, the plane was withdrawn from combat rather quickly.
18. Oddly enough, the wing was apparently quite robust; and the problem was probably in a design area not then well understood.
19. The manufacturer then decided to offer the type as a trainer.
20. It was produced as an advanced trainer, and two versions were produced.
21. And additional bracing was designed for the wings.
22. The trainer versions were used in large numbers by the producing country. Another country bought and used more than 50; and four other countries bought at least one each.
23. It was eventually decided wing flutter was the cause of the wing failures in the fighter versions; or perhaps another related phenomena simply not understood at the time.
24. Either way, its time in active combat service as a fighter was short; perhaps three months in all.
25. When compared to the aircraft which was ultimately selected in place of it, our subject aircraft was faster, more maneuverable, climbed much faster, had a higher service ceiling and was much lighter, with similar endurance. Of course, the wings didn’t fall off the other aircraft
26. Our subject aircraft was a parasol wing monoplane.