Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
In addition to being a fire hazard adding a lot of weight to the wings is bad for maneuverability. Not a big deal for bombers but I wouldn't put a fighter aircraft main fuel tank in the wings except as a last resort.
The AM-35 is big heavy, while offering more power, esp. at higher altitudes. The weight power can be compared with DB-601/Merlin/V-1710 - the power to weight ratio would be maybe at 90-95% of these, in 1941?
A plane with AM-35 could be something of a 'Soviet Spit V', the engine performance is a tad better than of Merlin 45. The engine is indeed heavier, the armament is lighter.
If you go with the smaller airframe you are limiting the development potential or suitability for other roles. Internal fuel needs to be close to the CG. Usually either in front of the pilot, under the pilot or in the wing roots. With small wings a larger percentage of the wing root is taken up by landing gear. Putting fuel tank/s under the pilot means a taller/fatter fuselage. You may not have room for the fuel you need if the airframe is too small.
Please remember that drop tanks are for getting to the fight. Internal fuel is for fighting and getting home. Range problems cannot be waved away by using drop tanks.
Higher wing loading (smaller wing) means more difficulties in operating from forward fields. Or for trying for the high altitude role.
Small airframes make mounting heavier armament more of a problem. Is sticking with one 20mm and two 7.62mm guns what you really want to do?
Great range, great firepower are good thinks. OK
Now that said you have to define your priority, and it is to be able to outfight your opponents, such as the Bf-109E, and 109F with the best chances. A real challenge since you have less powerfull engines than DB, and no light alloys.
I agree with potential or suitability for other roles about big airframes of Hurricane, P-40, Mustang mk 1. But remember that none of them was able to deal with last E-7 and "Freidriches". Fortunatly british had Spitfires and soviets Yak-1.
The VG-33 (558 km/h) was not outperformed by the 109E, a spectacular performance if you consider that it used only a 860 hp engine against 1100 or 1175 PS ones.
I think it was a dedicated site to planes, not to humour!
What a piece of scrap: it was 520 lb heavier than the M-105, and only 44 lb lighter than the 1665 HP M-38!
And so the story ends? NO! It had about 35 statistical hours of life expectancy (TBO).
So in order to give a chance to a soviet pilot to deal with a german "rookie" (350 flying hours) you would need to worn out 10 MiG's in order to fight on the 11th one!!!
1941 versions of the Fw-190 weren't all that capable or reliable. Why would you want to stick the VVS with a Fw-190A1 or Fw-190A2?
Hi, SR6, a question (IIRC you have some book(s) about Soviet engines):
Was the M-82 production in 1941 big enough to support a major-scale production of a plane that would feature it?
In what altitude the AM-38 achieved that power? IIRC it was a low-alt development of the AM-35. Maybe it was unfortunate for Soviets that a 'mid-alt' version of either the -35 or -38 was not produced; the AM-37, an alternative, being prone to overheating.