P-40 vs. Yak-1 vs. Hurricane (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

It also made little sense for the Russians to power airframes made in their country with engines manufactured elsewhere. If the supply of engines is cut off what do you do with the airframes?
This is the Russians after all and airframe production of some models is hundreds of aircraft a month.
Just about all successful Large Russian engines were developments of western engines in anycase. The Russians would certainly test western engines to learn what they could and if they thought they couldn't get similar results from one of their existing engines they would probably have asked for a manufacturing licence for the engine they were interested in. After all, they had negotiated licences for the Wright Cyclone, the Hispano Y series, some Gnome- Rhone designs and the Renault air cooled series before the war.

Another problem is Russian gasoline. It wasn't the same as British or American gasoline. THe West supplied a lot of aviation fuel to the Russians during WW II of which a large amount was used in the Western supplied aircraft. Increasing the number of engines in Russia needing this fuel by large numbers might have affected the supply problem.
 
Hello,

True, the machines don't care, however my point was about the people using them.
Whatever people think or not, when using the same Merlin XX, the Yak-1 was at least 140 km/h (665-520km/h) faster than the Hurricane. This with non strategical materials. Using light alloys for wings Yak-1 would be 160-170 km/h (685-520) faster with internal radiators inclueded inside the wing as the Yak-9U. Due to western high quality production standards and higher octane number fuel it will probably gain some 20-40 km/h more...In fact, Yak figher was gaining 20-25 instrumental extra km/h if used with 100 octanes western fuel (blue one) instead of the soviet 4B-78 (red one). But due to the overheat and engine guarantee for short runs only...

As you said neither machines, neither physics care about national proud...


Even the Russians seemed to prefer the useage of their own engines, over those from other nations.
Look at the widespread use of the Shvetsov radials and the Klimov V-12s in their own aircraft.
:eek: Sometimes i wonder why i'm posting...

If they didn't care where the aircraft came from, then why put all the money and time into developing their own aircraft in the first place?

Communist ideology and behaviour was to try doing better than everyone else. Can you explain how could you do that only by waiting and copying on the others? Anyway, when such policy failed they managed either to copy either to by licence for foreigh planes. And i would say with good taste of fine connoisseurs (very high qualified specialists), for instance:

Vultee V-11: BSh-1 (new production technology, multispar wings) ???????? ??-1
Catalina: GST
DC-3: Lisounov 2
B-29: Toupolev 4

All of them, were of course the very advanced planes for their times...


I bet that if they were given a choice, they'd prefer to develop and use their own aircraft, or at least, their version of another nations aircraft.
Of course. But if soviets were producing their own P-40, the large and heavy Tomaschevitch I-110 ????????? ?-110, and Curtiss Corporation a small and light airframe similar to the Yak-1 or the D-520 (or Czech Avia), they would have switch on that better american airframe production with no major ethic problem.

It's just pity that allies haven't did that on the opposite way, for soviet and for their own pilots.

I just want to point out that both Hurricane and P-40 were produced until 1944 at approx. 14 000 planes for each one. That was at least one, or two years (and some thousands planes) too far.

Regards

VG
 
Last edited:
I knew my post would be mistunderstood.

All of you that replied make very good points and all are true, but my point was that even though some of the planes and engines were copies of designs by other nations, they were still being built in Russia.
That alone makes those items, indigenous to Russia, and that's what I was trying to state was the preference.

Lastly, VG-33, forgive me if this is incorrect, but I think towards the end of your last post, you were lamenting on why the other allied nations didn't lease some aircraft from Russia?
From what I understand, a lot of what Russia produced during the war was rather crude and standardization of parts wasn't up to par to make them useful.
One story that comes to mind is the Finn's, during the development of their "Humu", an indigenous version of the F2A-1.
Being cut off from American supplies at that time, they found that the Russians M-82 was a copy of the Wright Cyclones that they had been using and sought to use captured versions, scavenged from shot down aircraft, in the Humu.
Further analysis showed that the Shvetsov radial was so much more crudely built than the actual Wright engines they already had, that the parts couldn't be swapped between them.


Elvis
 
Can't swap parts from a British RR Merlin and an American Packard Merlin either.

As far as planes that the Western allies could have used, the Yak 3 certainly comes to mind. License built in the USA or Canada, it would have had the quality western pilots were used to, better performance than the Soviet built Yak 3, and no doubt would have been cheaper to produce than a Spitfire or P51. hmmmm, wouldn't that make an interesting thread?
I'm sure the PPSH would have been well recieved also, in fact they are using them in Iraq and Afghanistan today.
I'll bet every Sherman (Zippo) tank crewman would have traded up to a T-34 in a heartbeat.
Yeah, I think there are some Soviet weapons that the western allies could have put to very good use.
 
Last edited:
Can't swap parts from a British RR Merlin and an American Packard Merlin either.

Actually it depends on the part in question.
Some parts are obvious like the different propellor shafts. Some are a little less so like the accessories, vacumn pumps, generators and thelike, their mounting points/pads and drives. Other parts like pistons, piston rings, valves, valve springs, rockers etc might be fully interchangeable.

American Cyclones were built to American standards, Russina Cyclones were built to metric standards. At least that is what I get from Vladimir Kotelnikov's book "Russian Piston Aero Engines". See page 117.

"....an STO decree issued on 28 Novemeber 1933 covered the purchase of about 150 complete engines, 100 engines as parts, and the acquisition of the most complex components for another 100 engines, at a total cost of 0f 4,350,000 roubles. At the end of December 1933 the first Cyclone engine was shipped to the USSR.
At about the same time the Wright company prepared the metric engineering drawings and built a prototype , and in January 1934 put it to bench testing. The 100hr bench test was compleated in the USA by April 1934."

The American engine went through several major modifications beween 1933 and 1940-41 and the Russians went through the M-25 series, the M-62 series and the M-63 series engines.
It is not surprising that engines manufactured 5-6 years after the divergence point and built to different measurement standards don't have interchangeable parts.
 
Hello

last post, you were lamenting on why the other allied nations didn't lease some aircraft from Russia?
From what I understand, a lot of what Russia produced during the war was rather crude and standardization of parts wasn't up to par to make them useful.
It was above all far easier to mass produce, even for unqualified and inexperienced workers. But that is not the question.

One story that comes to mind is the Finn's, during the development of their "Humu", an indigenous version of the F2A-1.
Being cut off from American supplies at that time, they found that the Russians M-82 was a copy of the Wright Cyclones that they had been using and sought to use captured versions, scavenged from shot down aircraft, in the Humu.
Further analysis showed that the Shvetsov radial was so much more crudely built than the actual Wright engines they already had, that the parts couldn't be swapped between them.

First, i don't understand how a two row radial 14 cylinder engine of 1.22 m of diamteter (155.1 mm stroke) can be a copy of a nine cylinder single row 9 cylinder 1.40 m diameter (174,1 mm stroke) one? Maybe i have missed something...

Secund, from 1935 the licence built wright cyclone was converted in metric system, just as Lisunov 2, in order to use local machine tools. Even if they were identical at 100% to their american models, they were compatible at 0%!!!

So i don't really understand anyway what finns tried to do between M-82 (155.5 x155.1) and R-1820 (155.6 x 174.1) engines...


Regards

VG 33
 
Last edited:
VG-33;

He may have made a missprint.

THe M-62 was another Shvetsov engine. It was a copy of the 9 cylinder Cyclone as I stated above but as I stated and as you have stated it is vey doubtful that the American version (inches) and Russian versions (metric) were IDENTICAL.
 
VG-33;

He may have made a missprint.

THe M-62 was another Shvetsov engine. It was a copy of the 9 cylinder Cyclone as I stated above but as I stated and as you have stated it is vey doubtful that the American version (inches) and Russian versions (metric) were IDENTICAL.

Ok, ok...Not exactly identical but very close or... superficialy identical!:lol:

It's changes nothing about the 0% compatible parts that i have quoted. It was the same problem for units, using C-47 and Li-2 alltogether.

VG
 
Last edited:
Great research and an interesting read, VG-33!
Thanks for posting that.
However, there's a side that wasn't touched on (although you skimmed pretty close in the beginning), and that begs the question - Could Nationalism have played some role in Stalin's letter to Churchill?.
Its no secret that nations tend to be more supportive of an Indigenously designed and built aircraft, rather than having to "borrow" one from another nation, but will, if the need arises and only until they can, themselves, design and build something that will suit their needs.

Not saying this is absolutely the reason for the cancellation of Hurri and WH deliveries, just stating that that is another way to look at it.



Elvis
Of course !! Remember the story by Pravda about an auto race between a Ford and a Zil. They announced that while the Zil came in second, the Ford was next to last.
 
I do not agree with much of the previous discussion. Yak fighters were not comparitively tested by western powers and the sources of plane performances is suspect. Gee, it looks from the data provided that these were the best planes in the war and the Russians should have fought with nothing other than the Yak for air superiority. Consider the poor lowly P-39. An American plane that was considered such a dog in the west against the Germans and Japanese so that it saw little use in Europe and limited use in the SW Pacific. (t soon became the joke in the Pacific Theatre that a P-400 (an early P-39) was a P-40 with a Zero on its tail. They were used in the Med as a light patrol bomber or a ground attack plane, often escorted by P-40's.

Wartime Service of P-39 with USAAF

However, the Russians loved the P-39. Somehow it could handle Bf-109 in the east but not the west. Gee, if the Yak was such a world beater, why would they ever put it in the air?

Soviet P-39 Aces

Here is a list from a Russian source of their fighter aces. Look over the column of planes used. There are a lot more P-39 entries than Yak entries.

Soviet top Aces of WWII rating

Maybe, just maybe the Russian sources telling of it's stupendeous performance profile is a bit overstated?
 
I do not agree with much of the previous discussion. Yak fighters were not comparitively tested by western powers and the sources of plane performances is suspect. Gee, it looks from the data provided that these were the best planes in the war and the Russians should have fought with nothing other than the Yak for air superiority.

Wrong on all accounts, with exception of no Western tests of the Yaks.

Consider the poor lowly P-39. An American plane that was considered such a dog in the west against the Germans and Japanese so that it saw little use in Europe and limited use in the SW Pacific. (t soon became the joke in the Pacific Theatre that a P-400 (an early P-39) was a P-40 with a Zero on its tail. They were used in the Med as a light patrol bomber or a ground attack plane, often escorted by P-40's.

Wartime Service of P-39 with USAAF

The P-39 was seldom, if ever used as a light patrol bomber, if such a classification actually exists. MTO saw a small fraction of P-39s anyway. P-39's failings were low performance at altitude (= unsuitable vs. Luftwaffe at ETO) and lack of combat range (= problem in Asia/Pacific); neither of these mattered in the Eastern front, and Soviets (Stalin himself) clamore for more P-39s.

However, the Russians loved the P-39. Somehow it could handle Bf-109 in the east but not the west. Gee, if the Yak was such a world beater, why would they ever put it in the air?

Soviet P-39 Aces

Nobody ever called the Yak a world beater, at least not in the discussions on this very forum.

Here is a list from a Russian source of their fighter aces. Look over the column of planes used. There are a lot more P-39 entries than Yak entries.

Soviet top Aces of WWII rating

Maybe, just maybe the Russian sources telling of it's stupendeous performance profile is a bit overstated?

Covered above - Yak-1's performance profile was never claimed as awesome, not even by the Russians, and no-one here will toss the P-39 on the boneyard either.
 
P-39's failings were low performance at altitude (= unsuitable vs. Luftwaffe at ETO) and lack of combat range (= problem in Asia/Pacific).

The P-39's lack of altitude performance was also a major hindrance in the Pacific theatre. On Guadalcanal, the P-39s and P-400s simply lacked the ceiling to intercept incoming Japanese raids and so that work was left to the USMC F4Fs while the USAAF fighters took on more of a close air support role.

For the most part, the Russian Front was a low-altitude aerial campaign driven primarily by army tactical imperatives rather than considerations of a strategic air campaign, hence why aircraft like the P-39 did well there.
 
I'll take the P-40, thankyou....even a Griffon-powered one. ;) :D


Elvis
I'm gonna change my tune on this one.
I just did a quickee informal comparison using Wiki between the Yak-1, the P-40E and the Hurri IIc.
Top speed, climb rate and service ceiling all favour the Yak-1.
The armament is a bit light compared to the other two, but that may actually play in favour of the Yak (think about what eliminating two guns did for p-40 performance).
Sure the density of the volley is less than, say, six 50's or eight .303's, but one of those guns is a large machine gun and the other is a cannon, so it still has plenty of punch.
Based on the performance stats, I'm going to change my choice to the Yak-1.


Elvis
 
Pete,

How do you mean?
The Sherman was known as "The Ronson Lighter" for a reason. It's gun couldn't penetrate the front of a Panther at point blank range.
The T-34 pioneered the idea of sloping armour and helped run the Germans out of Russia.
Plus, the later 85mm gun was a match for the German's 88.
I'd like to hear what you've found out that makes you think the Sherman was a better tank than the T-34?


Elvis
 
Hey Elvis,

Look up "Armored Thunderbolt", The U.S. Army Sherman in World War II, by Steven Zaloga, he did rather exhaustive research and debunks more than one myth surrounding the inferiority of the Sherman, including the "Ronson or Zippo lighter" fallacy.

Better than the T-34? I wouldn't say that, a match for it? Yes. As for the Panther, the 75 might have trouble but the 76mm is a different story, here's a site that I know the fellow who takes care of it, he's a bit of a fanboy, his grammar is lacking sometimes but he has a lot of good info on the Sherman. Again, he let's some of his passion for the Sherman cloud his writing but he usually backs it up with good research, you'll find it here: The Sherman Tank Site | The place for all things Sherman Tank, By Jeeps_Guns_Tanks He'll also communicate freely if you ask him to back up his claims, he's a nice guy but doesn't suffer trollish behavior lightly, who does eh? :)

And if you really want ALL the details, and I mean ALL, this one makes my head start to ache but it seems he's covered every rivet change ever made: Sherman minutia homepage

Anyway, it's not my intent to hijack this thread, my apologies for that possibility, but check those out and enjoy, PM me if you want to converse more on the issue, always glad to discuss and exchange ideas/information.

Cheers.
 
There are probably several threads over in the WW II section on the T-34 vs the Sherman. I would note that comparing the Sherman and T-34 is like comparing the Bf 109 and the Spitfire. There were a lot of different versions of each with different guns, turrets, drive-line parts and so on.
 
I, for one, would like to issue an apology to the board for aiding in skewing this thread.
Was not my intention. I just got caught up in the conversation.

...so getting back to the subject (kinda)...

There was some discussion about the P-39.
If we add that one to the list, does that change anyone's choice?
If not, why do you think your choice is superior over the others, P-39 included?

...please, discuss....
 
When or what are we comparing?
Summer of 1940 the Hurricane is in combat in large numbers, the P-40 is just entering production and the Yak-1 is a prototype.
Summer of 1941 the Hurricane II has been in production for 9-10 months, the P-40D/E is entering production and the Yak-1 is being issued to the first few service squadrons.
Summer of 1942 the Hurricane IIc has been in production for quite sometime, the P-40F and K are going into service. The Yak-1 has seen numerous improvements.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back