- Thread starter
- #121
Not impossible indeed
Light fighters alternatives, 1935-1945 (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
FulmenTheFinn
Airman 1st Class
Not quite. There were several iterations of different concepts for the aircraft, the fastest of which had a theoretical calculated max. speed in level-flight of 682 kmh. See also my post on the project on page 5 of this thread here.
Source: Jukka Raunio (2007): Valtion Lentokonetehtaan Historia, Osa 2: Tampereella ja sodissa 1933-1944, pp. 237-240.
Considering the mid-air disintegrations that plagued the Myrsky project, which were a result of Finland lacking the capability to produce high-grade adhesive film, among other things, it's difficult to imagine the Puuska would've faired any better.
Yeah funny enough...I am making brackets for my 7 degrees swept wind turbine blades.Not impossible indeed
-----
Yakovlev Yak-3 - Wikipedia
Yak-3 was pretty looking fighter.
VL Puuska was to have 1 m2 less wing area compared to YAK-3.
Last edited:
Which air foil was it to use ?
VL Pyörremyrsky oli Valtion Lentokonetehtaan suunnittelema toisen maailmansodan aikainen suomalainen hävittäjälentokone. Jos etsit tietoa koneen siiven aerodynamiikasta ja siipiprofiilista (engl. wing airfoil), sen tekniset tiedot ovat: [1]
YAK-3 had Clark YH.
Howard Gibson
Staff Sergeant
I am reading back through the early messages of this thread. We are having difficulties defining lightweight fighters.I don't have time to wade into this now, but I can roughly sketch out a premise:
We have the assumption in the Anglophone world (and the multi-lingual but Anglophone adjacent worlds) that more power, more guns, more armor was the only way to victory in WW2. I don't think that is necessarily the case though, and a let's say 'revisionist' approach to the history of aircraft like the A6M, Ki-43, MC 202, Yak-1B, Yak 3, La 5FN etc., and then by contrast the P-47, Typhoon, Bf 110 / 210 / 410, Ki-45, yes even the Corsair and P-38 based on their operational histories, tells us that perhaps there was another way- a lighter way.
Operational history tells us that lighter aircraft with fewer guns and a bit less speed or high altitude dominance could also be effective. Whether you needed to be highest and fastest in every scenario depended a lot on the nature of the battlefield and the Theater. Strategic bombing campaigns were not the only way to victory, and where there was a big ground war (or a naval war) going on below the skies, tactical bombers and attack aircraft were much more important (arguably) than big high flying heavy bombers. Which meant that fighters needed to be able to perform better down low, and needed to be agile enough to win sustained fights around the smaller tactical dive bombers and attack planes.
So there are two tiers to this perhaps. First, we have the known to be successful 'lighter fighters', then we have the more experimental truly 'light fighters' with smaller engines, less guns, maybe non-strategic materials etc., which for the most part, never got real investment or were abandoned by the later war. These would generally be under 3,000 kg gross weight, mostly not used or saw minimal action during the war, mostly using smaller than typical engines (sometimes really achieving a lot in terms of speed with quite small engines ~500 hp etc.) and with small production ranging from just a prototype to maybe 300 or 400 produced. There is obviously some overlap between the two groups, as anything which saw widespread military service goes in the first group.
I probably missed quite a few but I'm out of time ... this gives us something to think about though.
Lighter Fighters might include:
A5M
...
From the mid-thirties to the end of WWII, the engines increased in displacement and power, and the guns got bigger and more numerous. Aircraft like the Mitsubishi A5M and the Curtis P36, developed in the thirties, used the biggest available engines, and if not (relatively) massive firepower, their armament was at least conventional. However light they were later in the war, they were conventional back in their day.
It's 1943, and the Billy Bob and Cousin Elmo aircraft company sets to work developing a lightweight fighter. In 1943, BBCE can design around the Pratt & Whitney R1830 in preference to the now available and reliable R2800. I think that less than four M2 0.5" machine guns is not a good idea. To keep the aircraft as tiny as possible, we give up high altitude performance, and range. If the aircraft is really tiny, it will have good acceleration and climb. The aircraft would be useful for tactical air superiority, and for light bombing tasks. Presumably, you would have lots of them.
I don't see how any of this works outside of the USA. Great Britain's small, early war engine was the Merlin. The Rolls Royce Kestrel and Bristol Pegasus were well under 1000hp, and not suitable for a 1943 fighter. Firepower can be reduced to a pair of 20mm Hispanos. The Germans did not have a dinky early war engine. Both the Bf109 and the Fw190 were tiny aircraft. Japanese fighters were lightweight by 1943 standards, and they desperately needed to develop big, powerful fighters, with armour protection, and the firepower to knock down American four engined bombers. Like the Germans, they failed to develop high altitude fighters.
Howard Gibson
Staff Sergeant
Nobody has mentioned the Ambrosini SAI.403. This was lightweight by mid-war standards and made of wood. The Germans and Japanese were impressed by its performance, although I have my doubts about a war-ready aircraft doing 403mph.
FulmenTheFinn
Airman 1st Class
NACA 23009 at the tip and NACA 0014-64 at the root.
- Thread starter
- #129
I'd share your doubts about that turn of speed, especially since the similar SAI.207 did only 575 km/h (under 360 mph).
Also, stuff coming from Green of the 1960s/70s is another red flag.
