Finland prior and during WWII was not much of an industrial powerhouse, but we know they were not lacking for ingenuity. Indigenous designs like the Lahti L-39 (one of the few AT rifles that still had some limited effectiveness post-1941), the Suomi KP-31 submachine gun and other weapons were of high quality and performed well in the field, the KP-31 in particular being so influential as a weapon and effective as a force multiplier that the Russians invested heavily in submachine guns (the PPsH line) after facing them in number during the Winter War.
Their air force during the Continuation War, while having some of the most experienced and highest-scoring pilots in Europe, was a cobbled together logistical nightmare with American, Italian, German, British, French and even some captured Soviet aircraft all complicating the supply chain. They still made do with it somehow, even creating some Frankenstein fighters like the Mörkö-Morane but one wonders what a completely Finnish-designed fighter would look like.
We do get some idea with the VL Humu, which was design wise very similar to the well-liked Brewster Buffalo. It was grossly underpowered, overweight and obsolete right out the gate and the Finns wisely shelved it after testing the prototype in 1944. Obviously the Humu was a contingency plan designed during the desperation of wartime with very limited resources, mainly utilizing wood in its construction much like the similarly mediocre LaGG-3 on the Soviet side.
However, let's say this was not the case, and by 1942 Finland was able to maintain enough industrial capacity and cannibalize enough engines, guns, etc. from other aircraft (or maybe build licensed versions of engines, guns, etc.) to build 100 of a better single-engine fighter, and make it capable enough to serve alongside the Bf 109G's they would receive later.
So how would you design this hypothetical aircraft? I'd say the only solid requirement is minimum top speed of 370 mph @ <20,000 feet to keep it somewhat competitive, from there go nuts. All metal or mixed wood/fabric/steel? Inline or radial engine, and which one? What combination of armament? Fighter-bomber like the Hurricane and P-40 or dedicated interceptor/tactical dogfighter like the Yaks?
The design should be under 8,000 pounds empty and be tough enough to withstand Finnish/Eastern Front conditions. Maybe with additional winter equipment (landing gear convertible to skis, engine preheater etc.) to increase reliability and operational readiness.
Discuss.
Their air force during the Continuation War, while having some of the most experienced and highest-scoring pilots in Europe, was a cobbled together logistical nightmare with American, Italian, German, British, French and even some captured Soviet aircraft all complicating the supply chain. They still made do with it somehow, even creating some Frankenstein fighters like the Mörkö-Morane but one wonders what a completely Finnish-designed fighter would look like.
We do get some idea with the VL Humu, which was design wise very similar to the well-liked Brewster Buffalo. It was grossly underpowered, overweight and obsolete right out the gate and the Finns wisely shelved it after testing the prototype in 1944. Obviously the Humu was a contingency plan designed during the desperation of wartime with very limited resources, mainly utilizing wood in its construction much like the similarly mediocre LaGG-3 on the Soviet side.
However, let's say this was not the case, and by 1942 Finland was able to maintain enough industrial capacity and cannibalize enough engines, guns, etc. from other aircraft (or maybe build licensed versions of engines, guns, etc.) to build 100 of a better single-engine fighter, and make it capable enough to serve alongside the Bf 109G's they would receive later.
So how would you design this hypothetical aircraft? I'd say the only solid requirement is minimum top speed of 370 mph @ <20,000 feet to keep it somewhat competitive, from there go nuts. All metal or mixed wood/fabric/steel? Inline or radial engine, and which one? What combination of armament? Fighter-bomber like the Hurricane and P-40 or dedicated interceptor/tactical dogfighter like the Yaks?
The design should be under 8,000 pounds empty and be tough enough to withstand Finnish/Eastern Front conditions. Maybe with additional winter equipment (landing gear convertible to skis, engine preheater etc.) to increase reliability and operational readiness.
Discuss.
Last edited:
